MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387865889 · doi:10.1080/08870446.2023.2269422

Promotion of physical activity among people who identify as women through the ParticipACTION mobile app

2023· article· en· W4387865889 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rachel Dunn, Katherine A. Tamminen, Jeemin Kim, Leigh M. Vanderloo

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMitacs
KeywordsMobile appsFeelingPsychologyPhysical activityPromotion (chess)Smartphone appIntervention (counseling)Focus groupmHealthApplied psychologyGerontologySocial psychologyPsychological interventionInternet privacyMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Health and fitness mobile applications can increase users’ physical activity (PA) levels (Lister et al., 2014). ParticipACTION is a national non-profit organization that developed a mobile app to target PA among adults (Truelove et al., 2020). The aim of this research was to examine how women’s PA is related to their use of the ParticipACTION app.Methods and Measurement Using a mixed-methods design, participants (n = 3,493) completed a survey regarding their PA levels, motivation for PA (capability, opportunity, motivation; COM-B, Keyworth et al., 2020), and motivation for using the ParticipACTION app. Nine focus groups were conducted (n = 37) to discuss the mobile app further.Results Path analyses revealed that users’ app use was positively associated with motivations for various app functions (e.g. self-monitoring, seeking exercise guidance), however, only motivation in-turn predicted PA. Descriptive results indicated that many women in Canada who used the app do not meet national guidelines for PA per week. Qualitative findings highlight women’s motivation for using the app, concerns with app functionality, and feelings of guilt for not engaging in PA.Conclusion The ParticipACTION app may have some benefit for improving women’s PA; intervention studies are needed to determine efficacy of mobile applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and HealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207