Just-in-Time Prompts for Running, Walking, and Performing Strength Exercises in the Built Environment: 4-Week Randomized Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: App-based mobile health exercise interventions can motivate individuals to engage in more physical activity (PA). According to the Fogg Behavior Model, it is important that the individual receive prompts at the right time to be successfully persuaded into PA. These are referred to as just-in-time (JIT) interventions. The Playful Active Urban Living (PAUL) app is among the first to include 2 types of JIT prompts: JIT adaptive reminder messages to initiate a run or walk and JIT strength exercise prompts during a walk or run (containing location-based instruction videos). This paper reports on the feasibility of the PAUL app and its JIT prompts. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to examine user experience, app engagement, and users' perceptions and opinions regarding the PAUL app and its JIT prompts and to explore changes in the PA behavior, intrinsic motivation, and the perceived capability of the PA behavior of the participants. METHODS: In total, 2 versions of the closed-beta version of the PAUL app were evaluated: a basic version (Basic PAUL) and a JIT adaptive version (Smart PAUL). Both apps send JIT exercise prompts, but the versions differ in that the Smart PAUL app sends JIT adaptive reminder messages to initiate running or walking behavior, whereas the Basic PAUL app sends reminder messages at randomized times. A total of 23 participants were randomized into 1 of the 2 intervention arms. PA behavior (accelerometer-measured), intrinsic motivation, and the perceived capability of PA behavior were measured before and after the intervention. After the intervention, participants were also asked to complete a questionnaire on user experience, and they were invited for an exit interview to assess user perceptions and opinions of the app in depth. RESULTS: No differences in PA behavior were observed (Z=-1.433; P=.08), but intrinsic motivation for running and walking and for performing strength exercises significantly increased (Z=-3.342; P<.001 and Z=-1.821; P=.04, respectively). Furthermore, participants increased their perceived capability to perform strength exercises (Z=2.231; P=.01) but not to walk or run (Z=-1.221; P=.12). The interviews indicated that the participants were enthusiastic about the strength exercise prompts. These were perceived as personal, fun, and relevant to their health. The reminders were perceived as important initiators for PA, but participants from both app groups explained that the reminder messages were often not sent at times they could exercise. Although the participants were enthusiastic about the functionalities of the app, technical issues resulted in a low user experience. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary findings suggest that the PAUL apps are promising and innovative interventions for promoting PA. Users perceived the strength exercise prompts as a valuable addition to exercise apps. However, to be a feasible intervention, the app must be more stable.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".