Active Use and Engagement in an mHealth Initiative Among Young Men With Obesity: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of mobile health (mHealth) approaches that employ wearable technology to promote physical activity have been the subject of concern due to the declining active use observed in trial settings. OBJECTIVE: To better contextualize active use, this study aimed to identify the barriers and enablers to engagement in a tracker-based mHealth initiative among young men who had recently completed a 19-week residential weight loss program. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted among 167 young men who had voluntarily enrolled in the national steps challenge (NSC), an mHealth physical activity promotion initiative, following a residential weight loss intervention. A subsample of 29 enrollees with a body mass index of 29.6 (SD 3.1) participated in semistructured interviews and additional follow-up assessments. Quantitative systems data on daily step count rates were used to describe active use. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed to elicit barriers and enablers to microlevel engagement in relation to the NSC, focusing on tracker and smartphone use. We further elicited barriers and enablers to macrolevel engagement by exploring attitudes and behaviors toward the NSC. Using triangulation, we examined how qualitative engagement in the NSC could account for quantitative findings on active use. Using integration of findings, we discussed how the mHealth intervention might have changed physical activity behavior. RESULTS: Among the 167 original enrollees, active use declined from 72 (47%) in week 1 to 27 (17%) in week 21. Mean daily step counts peaked in week 1 at 10,576 steps per day and were variable throughout the NSC. Barriers to engagement had occurred in the form of technical issues leading to abandonment, device switching, and offline tracking. Passive attitudes toward step counting and disinterest in the rewards had also prevented deeper engagement. Enablers of engagement included self-monitoring and coaching features, while system targets and the implicit prospect of reward had fostered new physical activity behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that as the NSC is implemented in this population, more emphasis should be placed on technical support and personalized activity targets to promote lasting behavior change.
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 | 0.019 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".