Evaluating the Impact of Adaptive Personalized Goal Setting on Engagement Levels of Government Staff With a Gamified mHealth Tool: Results From a 2-Month Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the health benefits of physical activity are well established, it remains challenging for people to adopt a more active lifestyle. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions can be effective tools to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior. Promising results have been obtained by using gamification techniques as behavior change strategies, especially when they were tailored toward an individual's preferences and goals; yet, it remains unclear how goals could be personalized to effectively promote health behaviors. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to evaluate the impact of personalized goal setting in the context of gamified mHealth interventions. We hypothesize that interventions suggesting health goals that are tailored based on end users' (self-reported) current and desired capabilities will be more engaging than interventions with generic goals. METHODS: The study was designed as a 2-arm randomized intervention trial. Participants were recruited among staff members of 7 governmental organizations. They participated in an 8-week digital health promotion campaign that was especially designed to promote walks, bike rides, and sports sessions. Using an mHealth app, participants could track their performance on two social leaderboards: a leaderboard displaying the individual scores of participants and a leaderboard displaying the average scores per organizational department. The mHealth app also provided a news feed that showed when other participants had scored points. Points could be collected by performing any of the 6 assigned tasks (eg, walk for at least 2000 m). The level of complexity of 3 of these 6 tasks was updated every 2 weeks by changing either the suggested task intensity or the suggested frequency of the task. The 2 intervention arms-with participants randomly assigned-consisted of a personalized treatment that tailored the complexity parameters based on participants' self-reported capabilities and goals and a control treatment where the complexity parameters were set generically based on national guidelines. Measures were collected from the mHealth app as well as from intake and posttest surveys and analyzed using hierarchical linear models. RESULTS: The results indicated that engagement with the program inevitably dropped over time. However, engagement was higher for participants who had set themselves a goal in the intake survey. The impact of personalization was especially observed for frequency parameters because the personalization of sports session frequency did foster higher engagement levels, especially when participants set a goal to improve their capabilities. In addition, the personalization of suggested ride duration had a positive effect on self-perceived biking performance. CONCLUSIONS: Personalization seems particularly promising for promoting the frequency of physical activity (eg, promoting the number of suggested sports sessions per week), as opposed to the intensity of the physical activity (eg, distance or duration). Replications and variations of our study setup are critical for consolidating and explaining (or refuting) these effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05264155; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05264155.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".