A Tailored Gender-Sensitive mHealth Weight Loss Intervention (I-GENDO): Development and Process Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity worldwide, the number of digital weight loss interventions has also risen. However, these interventions often lack theoretical background and data on long-term effectiveness. The consideration of individual and gender differences in weight-related psychological parameters might enhance the efficacy and sustainability of mobile-based weight loss interventions. OBJECTIVE: This paper presented an introduction to and the process evaluation of a 12-week gender-sensitive mobile health (mHealth) weight loss intervention (I-GENDO) combining computer-based and self-tailoring features. METHODS: Between August 2020 and August 2021, individuals with overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m²), those with obesity class I (BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m²), and those with obesity class II (BMI 35.0-39.9 kg/m²) were recruited to the I-GENDO project, a multicenter study in Germany. The mHealth intervention aimed at targeting individual psychological factors associated with the development and persistence of overweight and obesity (eg, emotional eating) using computer-based tailoring. Moreover, the intervention took a gender-sensitive approach by implementing self-tailoring of gender-targeted module versions. The computer-based assignment of the main modules, self-selection of gender-targeted module versions, and use patterns were evaluated while considering gender. Moreover, gender differences in the usability assessment were analyzed. RESULTS: ) were included in the analyses. Overall, the compliance (90/109, 82.6%) and satisfaction with the app (mean 86% approval) were high and comparable with those of other mobile weight loss interventions. The usability of the intervention was rated with 71% (5.0/7.0 points) satisfaction. More women obtained the main module that focused on emotion regulation skills. Most men and women selected women-targeted versions of the main modules. Women used the app more frequently and longer than men. However, women and men did not differ in the progress of use patterns throughout the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a tailored gender-sensitive mHealth weight loss intervention. The usability of and engagement with the intervention were satisfactory, and the overall satisfaction with the intervention was also high. Gender differences must be considered in the evaluation of the effectiveness and sustainability of the intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".