MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313116545 · doi:10.2196/40898

Design Features Associated With Engagement in Mobile Health Physical Activity Interventions Among Youth: Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies

2022· review· en· W4313116545 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayla Schwarz, Laura H.H. Winkens, Emely de Vet, Dian Ossendrijver, Kirsten Bouwsema, Monique Simons

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWageningen University and ResearchTechnische Universiteit EindhovenUniversiteit Utrecht
KeywordsPsychological interventionQualitative researchPsychologyPhysical activitySystematic reviewApplied psychologymHealthGerontologyMedicineMEDLINESociologyPhysical therapyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Globally, 81% of youth do not meet the physical activity (PA) guidelines. Youth of families with a low socioeconomic position are less likely to meet the recommended PA guidelines. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions are preferred by youth over traditional in-person approaches and are in line with their media preferences. Despite the promise of mHealth interventions in promoting PA, a common challenge is to engage users in the long term or effectively. Earlier reviews highlighted the association of different design features (eg, notifications and rewards) with engagement among adults. However, little is known about which design features are important for increasing engagement among youth. OBJECTIVE: To inform the design process of future mHealth tools, it is important to investigate the design features that can yield effective user engagement. This systematic review aimed to identify which design features are associated with engagement in mHealth PA interventions among youth who were aged between 4 and 18 years. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in EBSCOhost (MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection) and Scopus. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included if they documented design features associated with engagement. Design features and related behavior change techniques and engagement measures were extracted. Study quality was assessed according to the Mixed Method Assessment Tool, and one-third of all screening and data extraction were double coded by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Studies (n=21) showed that various features were associated with engagement, such as a clear interface, rewards, multiplayer game mode, social interaction, variety of challenges with personalized difficulty level, self-monitoring, and variety of customization options among others, including self-set goals, personalized feedback, progress, and a narrative. In contrast, various features need to be carefully considered while designing mHealth PA interventions, such as sounds, competition, instructions, notifications, virtual maps, or self-monitoring, facilitated by manual input. In addition, technical functionality can be considered as a prerequisite for engagement. Research addressing youth from low socioeconomic position families is very limited with regard to engagement in mHealth apps. CONCLUSIONS: Mismatches between different design features in terms of target group, study design, and content translation from behavior change techniques to design features are highlighted and set up in a design guideline and future research agenda. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021254989; https://tinyurl.com/5n6ppz24.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.214
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.214
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.542
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.086 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207