Development of a Mobile Health Snacktivity App to Promote Physical Activity in Inactive Adults (SnackApp): Intervention Mapping and User Testing Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the unequivocal evidence demonstrating the benefits of being physically active, many people do not meet the recommended guidelines of at least 150 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity per week. This can be changed with the development and implementation of innovative interventions. The use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies has been suggested as a mechanism to offer people innovative health behavior change interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to outline the systematic, theory-driven processes and user testing applied to the development of a smartphone-based physical activity app (SnackApp) to promote participation in a novel physical activity intervention called Snacktivity. The acceptability of the app was explored and reported. METHODS: Intervention mapping involves a 6-step process, the first 4 of which were presented in this study. These steps were used to develop the SnackApp for use within the Snacktivity intervention. The first step involved a needs assessment, which included composing an expert planning group, patient and public involvement group, and gathering the views of the public on Snacktivity and the public perception of the use of wearable technology to support Snacktivity. This first step aimed to determine the overall purpose of the Snacktivity intervention. Steps 2 to 4 involved determining the intervention objectives, the behavior change theory and techniques on which the intervention is based, and the development of the intervention resources (ie, SnackApp). After the completion of steps 1 to 3 of the intervention mapping process, the SnackApp was developed and linked to a commercial physical activity tracker (Fitbit Versa Lite) for the automated capture of physical activity. SnackApp includes provisions for goal setting, activity planning, and social support. Stage 4 involved users (inactive adults, N=15) testing the SnackApp for 28 days. App engagement (mobile app use analytics) was analyzed to determine app use and to inform the further development of SnackApp. RESULTS: Over the study period (step 4), participants engaged with SnackApp an average of 77 (SD 80) times. On average, participants used the SnackApp for 12.6 (SD 47) minutes per week, with most of the time spent on the SnackApp dashboard and engaging, on average, 14 (SD 12.1) times, lasting 7 to 8 minutes per week. Overall, male participants used the SnackApp more than female participants did. The app rating score was 3.5 (SD 0.6) out of 5, suggesting that SnackApp was rated as fair to good. CONCLUSIONS: This study outlines and reports data regarding the development of an innovative mHealth app using a systematic, theory-driven framework. This approach can guide the development of future mHealth programs. User testing of the SnackApp suggested that physically inactive adults will engage with the SnackApp, indicating its applicability of use in the Snacktivity physical activity intervention.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".