Ratings and experiences in using a mobile application to increase physical activity among university students: implications for future design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract University students have low levels of physical activity and are at risk of mental health disorders. Mobile apps to encourage physical activity can help students, who are frequent smartphone-users, to improve their physical and mental health. Here we report students’ qualitative feedback on a physical activity smartphone app with motivational text messaging. We provide recommendations for the design of future apps. 103 students used the app for 6 weeks in the context of a clinical trial (NCT04440553) and answered open-ended questions before the start of the study and at follow-up. A subsample (n = 39) provided additional feedback via text message, and a phone interview (n = 8). Questions focused on the perceived encouragement and support by the app, text messaging content, and recommendations for future applications. We analyzed all transcripts for emerging themes using qualitative coding in Dedoose. The majority of participants were female (69.9%), Asian or Pacific Islander (53.4%), with a mean age of 20.2 years, and 63% had elevated depressive symptoms. 26% felt encouraged or neutral toward the app motivating them to be more physically active. Participants liked messages on physical activity benefits on (mental) health, encouraging them to complete their goal, and feedback on their activity. Participants disliked messages that did not match their motivations for physical activity and their daily context (e.g., time, weekday, stress). Physical activity apps for students should be adapted to their motivations, changing daily context, and mental health issues. Feedback from this sample suggests a key to effectiveness is finding effective ways to personalize digital interventions.
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 | 0.037 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".