MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297458492 · doi:10.2196/30602

The Effects of a Lifestyle Intervention Supported by the InterWalk Smartphone App on Increasing Physical Activity Among Persons With Type 2 Diabetes: Parallel-Group, Randomized Trial

2022· article· en· W4297458492 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ida Kær Thorsen, Yanxiang Yang, Laura Staun Valentiner, Charlotte Glümer, Kristian Karstoft, Jan Christian Brønd, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen, Charlotte Brøns, Robin Christensen, Jens Steen Nielsen, Allan Vaag, Bente Klarlund Pedersen, Henning Langberg, Mathias Ried‐Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter for Strategic ResearchVissing FondenNovo Nordisk FondenNovo NordiskAugustinus FondenDiabetesforeningenOdense UniversitetshospitalDanmarks GrundforskningsfondSteno Diabetes Center CopenhagenTrygFondenParker Institute for Cancer ImmunotherapyNational Research FoundationStrategiske Forskningsråd
KeywordsType 2 diabetesRandomized controlled trialPhysical activityIntervention (counseling)mHealthGerontologySmartphone appPhysical therapyPsychologyDiabetes mellitusSmartphone applicationMedicinePsychological interventionMultimediaComputer scienceInternet privacyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Effective and sustainable implementation of physical activity (PA) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) health care has in general not been successful. Efficacious and contemporary approaches to support PA adherence and adoption are required. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of including an app-based (InterWalk) approach in municipality-based rehabilitation to increase moderate-and-vigorous PA (MVPA) across 52 weeks compared with standard care among individuals with T2D. METHODS: The study was designed as a parallel-group, randomized trial with 52 weeks' intervention and subsequent follow-up for effectiveness (52 weeks from baseline). Participants were recruited between January 2015 and December 2016 and randomly allocated (2:1) into 12 weeks of (1) standard care + InterWalk app-based interval walking training (IWT; IWT group; n=140), or (2) standard care + the standard exercise program (StC group; n=74). Following 12 weeks, the IWT group was encouraged to maintain InterWalk app-based IWT (3 times per week for 30-60 minutes) and the StC group was encouraged to maintain exercise without structured support. Moreover, half of the IWT group (IWTsupport group, n=54) received additional motivational support following the 12-week program until 52-week follow-up. The primary outcome was change in objectively measured MVPA time (minutes/day) from baseline to 52-week follow-up. Key secondary outcomes included changes in self-rated physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL), physical fitness, weight, and waist circumference. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 59.6 (SD 10.6) years and 128/214 (59.8%) were men. No changes in MVPA time were observed from baseline to 52-week follow-up in the StC and IWT groups (least squares means [95% CI] 0.6 [-4.6 to 5.8] and -0.2 [-3.8 to 3.3], respectively) and no differences were observed between the groups (mean difference [95% CI] -0.8 [-8.1 to 6.4] minutes/day; P=.82). Physical HRQoL increased by a mean of 4.3 (95% CI 1.8 to 6.9) 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) points more in the IWT group compared with the StC group (Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P=.007) and waist circumference apparently decreased a mean of -2.3 (95% CI -4.1 to -0.4) cm more in the IWT group compared with the StC group but with a Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P=.06. No between-group differences were observed among the remaining key secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with T2D referred to municipality-based lifestyle programs, randomization to InterWalk app-based IWT did not increase objectively measured MVPA time over 52 weeks compared with standard health care, although apparent benefits were observed for physical HRQoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02341690; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02341690.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207