MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283582129 · doi:10.2196/37849

mHealth Support to Stimulate Physical Activity in Individuals With Intellectual Disability: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Pilot Study

2022· article· en· W4283582129 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Henriette Michalsen, Silje C Wangberg, Gunnar Hartvigsen, André Henriksen, Gunn Pettersen, Letizia Jaccheri, Reidun Jahnsen, Gyrd Thrane, Cathrine Arntzen, Audny Anke

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthActivity trackerIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialUsabilityProtocol (science)Data collectionPsychologyMedicinePhysical activityPsychological interventionPhysical therapyNursingAlternative medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown that individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDs) have low levels of physical activity (PA), and intervention studies on PA suggest inconsistent evidence. The use of technology as a means of motivation for PA has yet to be extensively explored and needs to be further investigated. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess the feasibility and acceptability of procedures for an intervention arm in a future trial on mobile health (mHealth) to support PA for individuals with IDs. In addition, we aim to examine how the use of technology can influence motivation for PA among participants, their caregivers, and staff members. METHODS: A mixed methods pilot study of an intervention arm will be carried out in a planned randomized controlled trial (RCT). Ten participants with ID and their caregivers or a staff member will be included. Information will always be provided by a caregiver or a staff member, or participants with ID if possible. Assessments will be carried out at baseline, follow-up after 4 weeks, and 12 weeks, and include questionnaires on PA, social support, self-efficacy, and challenging behavior. PA will be measured with 2 different activity trackers (Fitbit and Axivity) for 1 week at all assessments. Feasibility will be assessed as recruitment and adherence rate, missing data, usability of the motivational mHealth tool, and estimates of effectiveness. Acceptability of study procedures, activity measures, and motivation for participation in PA will be additionally assessed with qualitative methods at the end of the intervention. RESULTS: Enrollment commenced in May 2021. Data collection was completed in March 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of study procedures of the intervention arm of a planned RCT to address feasibility issues, improve study procedures, and estimate effectiveness of the study measures. How the use of technology can influence motivation for PA will also be examined, which can help guide and improve future PA interventions involving the use of technology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04929106; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04929106. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37849.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.014

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 head0.511
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207