Acceptability, usefulness, and satisfaction with a web-based video-tailored physical activity intervention: The TaylorActive randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the usage, acceptability, usability, perceived usefulness, and satisfaction of a web-based video-tailored physical activity (PA) intervention (TaylorActive) in adults. METHODS: In 2013-2014, 501 Australian adults aged 18+ years were randomized into a video-tailored intervention, text-tailored intervention, or control group. Over 3 months, the intervention groups received access to 8 sessions of personally tailored PA advice delivered via the TaylorActive website. Only the delivery method differed between the intervention groups: video-tailored vs. text-tailored. Google Analytics and telephone surveys conducted at post intervention (3 months) were used to assess intervention usage, acceptability, usability, perceived usefulness, and satisfaction. Quantitative and qualitative process data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Of 501 recruited adults, 259 completed the 3-month post-intervention survey (52% retention). Overall, usage of the TaylorActive website with respect to number of website visits, intervention sessions, and action plans completed was modest in both the video-tailored (7.6 ± 7.2 visits, mean ± SD) and text-tailored (7.3 ± 5.4 visits) groups with no significant between-group differences. The majority of participants in all groups used the TaylorActive website less than once in 2 weeks (66.7% video-tailored, 62.7% text-tailored, 87.5% control; p < 0.001). Acceptability was rated mostly high in all groups and, in some instances, significantly higher in the intervention groups compared to the control group (p < 0.010). Usability was also rated high; mean Systems Usability Scores were 77.3 (video-tailored), 75.7 (text-tailored), and 74.1 (control) with no significant between-group differences. Perceived usefulness of the TaylorActive intervention was low, though mostly rated higher in the intervention groups compared to the control group (p < 0.010). Satisfaction with the TaylorActive website was mixed. Participants in both intervention groups liked its ease of use, personalized feedback, and tracking of progress, but also found completing action plans and survey questions for each session repetitive and tedious. CONCLUSION: Providing personally tailored PA advice on its own (through either video or text) is likely insufficient to ensure good retention, usage, perceived usefulness, and satisfaction with a web-based PA intervention. Strategies to address this may include the incorporation of additional intervention components such as activity trackers, social interactions, gamification, as well as the use of advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies to allow more personalized dialogue with participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".