Supporting Autonomous Motivation for Physical Activity With Chatbots During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Factorial Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although physical activity can mitigate disease trajectories and improve and sustain mental health, many people have become less physically active during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal information technology, such as activity trackers and chatbots, can technically converse with people and possibly enhance their autonomous motivation to engage in physical activity. The literature on behavior change techniques (BCTs) and self-determination theory (SDT) contains promising insights that can be leveraged in the design of these technologies; however, it remains unclear how this can be achieved. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a chatbot system that improves the user's autonomous motivation for walking based on BCTs and SDT. First, we aimed to develop and evaluate various versions of a chatbot system based on promising BCTs. Second, we aimed to evaluate whether the use of the system improves the autonomous motivation for walking and the associated factors of need satisfaction. Third, we explored the support for the theoretical mechanism and effectiveness of various BCT implementations. METHODS: We developed a chatbot system using the mobile apps Telegram (Telegram Messenger Inc) and Google Fit (Google LLC). We implemented 12 versions of this system, which differed in 3 BCTs: goal setting, experimenting, and action planning. We then conducted a feasibility study with 102 participants who used this system over the course of 3 weeks, by conversing with a chatbot and completing questionnaires, capturing their perceived app support, need satisfaction, physical activity levels, and motivation. RESULTS: The use of the chatbot systems was satisfactory, and on average, its users reported increases in autonomous motivation for walking. The dropout rate was low. Although approximately half of the participants indicated that they would have preferred to interact with a human instead of the chatbot, 46.1% (47/102) of the participants stated that the chatbot helped them become more active, and 42.2% (43/102) of the participants decided to continue using the chatbot for an additional week. Furthermore, the majority thought that a more advanced chatbot could be very helpful. The motivation was associated with the satisfaction of the needs of competence and autonomy, and need satisfaction, in turn, was associated with the perceived system support, providing support for SDT underpinnings. However, no substantial differences were found across different BCT implementations. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence that chatbot systems are a feasible means to increase autonomous motivation for physical activity. We found support for SDT as a basis for the design, laying a foundation for larger studies to confirm the effectiveness of the selected BCTs within chatbot systems, explore a wider range of BCTs, and help the development of guidelines for the design of interactive technology that helps users achieve long-term health benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".