Acceptability and Usability of a Theory-Driven Intervention via Email to Promote Physical Activity in Women Who Are Overweight or Obese: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Insufficient physical activity (PA) and excess weight increase illness risk for women. Face-to-face interventions can increase PA levels; however, they are often inaccessible. With growing interest in digital interventions, a Self-Determination Theory (SDT)–driven intervention was developed and delivered via email to promote PA in women who were insufficiently active and overweight or obese. OBJECTIVE This substudy explores users’ perspectives about the acceptability and usability of the intervention, which was coupled with a wearable activity monitor and PA recommendations. METHODS A 3-arm, parallel group, randomized controlled trial (unblinded) was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Recruitment occurred from September 2018 to March 2019 via advertising through social media, web-based boards, and posters in publicly accessible areas. In total, 47 women with a BMI of ≥25 kg/m2 who were not meeting the Canadian PA guidelines were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms (arm 1: n=15, 32%; arm 2: n=16, 34%; arm 3: n=16, 34%). This substudy focused on the 15 participants allocated to the main intervention arm. Participants received an automated intervention consisting of (1) 6 weekly emails, (2) a Polar Electro Inc A300 activity monitor (with access to the Polar Flow website and companion smartphone app), and (3) a copy of the Canadian PA guidelines for adults. Emails were developed using SDT and designed to enhance autonomous motivation by fostering the psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Well-established motivational and behavior change techniques were embedded in the emails to promote needs satisfaction. After the intervention (ie, 7 weeks after randomization), participants were invited to complete a web-based acceptability and usability survey containing open-ended and closed-ended questions; responses were analyzed using descriptive and content analyses, respectively. RESULTS The analyses included data from 93% (14/15) of the women (age: mean 33.4, SD 7.5; range 24-44 years; BMI: mean 31.3, SD 5.8 kg/m2; range 25-40.5 kg/m2) who received the main intervention and completed the postintervention survey. Open-ended responses indicated that participants were generally satisfied with the intervention and appreciated that emails prompted self-reflection, kept them on track and accountable, provided informational support, and were nonpressuring. Furthermore, they suggested that the monitor was “enjoyable” and “helpful”; quantitative data corroborated this, as 71% (10/14) said that the monitor was “very valuable/absolutely valuable,” 71% (10/14) would “very probably/definitely” still use one, and 86% (12/14) wore it for ≥5 days per week for ≥8 hours per day and checked it “occasionally/frequently/very frequently.” Potential threats to acceptability included “long” and “text-heavy” emails; lack of personal contact; and cumbersome, unaesthetic monitors. CONCLUSIONS Results suggest that this SDT-driven, email-delivered intervention may be an acceptable low-contact approach to promote PA in women who are overweight or obese and insufficiently active; however, improvements are warranted and studies ascertaining its effectiveness are needed. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03601663; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03601663 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.1177/20552076221093134
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".