Design Principles in mHealth Interventions for Sustainable Health Behavior Changes: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, mHealth has increasingly been used to deliver behavioral interventions for disease prevention and self-management. Computing power in mHealth tools can provide unique functions beyond conventional interventions in provisioning personalized behavior change recommendations and delivering them in real time, supported by dialogue systems. However, design principles to incorporate these features in mHealth interventions have not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this review is to identify best practices for the design of mHealth interventions targeting diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior. We aim to identify and summarize the design characteristics of current mHealth tools with a focus on the following features: (1) personalization, (2) real-time functions, and (3) deliverable resources. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic search of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published since 2010. First, we will use keywords that combine mHealth, interventions, chronic disease prevention, and self-management. Second, we will use keywords that cover diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior. Literature found in the first and second steps will be combined. Finally, we will use keywords for personalization and real-time functions to limit the results to interventions that have reported these design features. We expect to perform narrative syntheses for each of the 3 target design features. Study quality will be evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool. RESULTS: We have conducted a preliminary search of existing systematic reviews and review protocols on mHealth-supported behavior change interventions. We have identified several reviews that aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mHealth behavior change interventions in a range of populations, evaluate methodologies for assessing mHealth behavior change randomized trials, and assess the diversity of behavior change techniques and theories in mHealth interventions. However, syntheses on the unique features of mHealth intervention design are absent in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings will provide a basis for developing best practices for designing mHealth tools for sustainable behavior change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021261078; https://tinyurl.com/m454r65t. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/39093.
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 | 0.104 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.012 |
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".