MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281932522 · doi:10.2196/35118

A Theory-Informed, Personalized mHealth Intervention for Adolescents (Mobile App for Physical Activity): Development and Pilot Study

2022· article· en· W4281932522 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alex Domin, Arif Sinan Uslu, André Schulz, Yacine Ouzzahra, Claus Vögele

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsmHealthIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionMedicinePhysical therapyBehavior change methodsPhysical activitySedentary behaviorActivity trackerScreen timeRandomized controlled trialBehavior changeSmartphone appSedentary lifestyleGerontologyNursingWorld Wide WebComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Evidence suggests that physical activity (PA) during childhood and adolescence is crucial as it usually results in adequate PA levels in adulthood. Given the ubiquitous use of smartphones by adolescents, these devices may offer feasible means to reach young populations and deliver interventions aiming to increase PA participation and decrease sedentary time. To date, very few studies have reported smartphone-based interventions promoting PA for adolescents. In addition, most available fitness apps do not include the latest evidence-based content. Objective This paper described the systematic development of a behavior change, theory-informed Mobile App for Physical Activity intervention with personalized prompts for adolescents aged 16 to 18 years. The within-subject trial results provided the first evidence of the general effectiveness of the intervention based on the outcomes step count, sedentary time, and moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) minutes. The effectiveness of the intervention component personalized PA prompt was also assessed. Methods A 4-week within-subject trial with 18 healthy adolescents aged 16 to 18 years was conducted (mean age 16.33, SD 0.57 years). After the baseline week, the participants used the Mobile App for Physical Activity intervention (Fitbit fitness tracker+app), which included a daily personalized PA prompt delivered via a pop-up notification. A paired 1-tailed t test was performed to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Change-point analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of a personalized PA prompt 30 and 60 minutes after prompt delivery. Results The results showed that the intervention significantly reduced sedentary time in adolescents during the first week of the trial (t17=−1.79; P=.04; bootstrapped P=.02). This trend, although remaining positive, diminished over time. Our findings indicate that the intervention had no effect on metabolic equivalent of task–based MVPA minutes, although the descriptive increase may give reason for further investigation. Although the results suggested no overall change in heart rate–based MVPA minutes, the results from the change-point analyses suggest that the personalized PA prompts significantly increased heart rate per minute during the second week of the study (t16=1.84; P=.04; bootstrapped P=.04). There were no significant increases in participants’ overall step count; however, the personalized PA prompts resulted in a marginally significant increase in step counts per minute in the second week of the study (t17=1.35; P=.09; bootstrapped P=.05). Conclusions The results of the trial provide preliminary evidence of the benefit of the Mobile App for Physical Activity intervention for modest yet significant reductions in participants’ sedentary time and the beneficial role of personalized PA prompts. These results also provide further evidence of the benefits and relative efficacy of personalized activity suggestions for inclusion in smartphone-based PA interventions. This study provides an example of how to guide the development of smartphone-based mobile health PA interventions for adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207