MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282832187 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2075573

Persuasive Strategies and Their Implementations in Mobile Interventions for Physical Activity: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4282832187 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionImplementationSedentary behaviorStrengths and weaknessesPersuasive technologyPhysical activitySystematic reviewApplied psychologyPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceProcess managementMEDLINEEngineeringPhysical therapyNursingPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPersuasion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unhealthy lifestyle behaviors such as spending too many hours sitting and inadequate physical activity (PA) can contribute to different chronic diseases. Research has revealed the capabilities of digital technology interventions such as persuasive technologies (PTs) for providing health support and encouraging healthy behavior changes to assist people in preventing chronic diseases and having healthier lifestyles. Thus, the use of mobile technology to deliver PT interventions has dramatically increased, especially for promoting PA and reducing sedentary behavior (SB) by employing various persuasive strategies (PSs). This paper provides a systematic review of 16 years of research from 2006 to 2021. The review aims to (1) explore the various ways each strategy is implemented on mobile-based PTs for PA and SB, (2) evaluate the effectiveness of different ways of implementing the PSs on mobile-based PT interventions for PA and SB, (3) provide a comparison of the different ways of implementing each PS, (4) show the weaknesses and strengths of the interventions based on the strategies and implementations, (5) highlight the limitations and pitfalls of the existing research, and (6) give recommendations and directions for future research.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.363 · 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