Deconstructing Fitbit to Specify the Effective Features in Promoting Physical Activity Among Inactive Adults: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wearable activity trackers have become key players in mobile health practice as they offer various behavior change techniques (BCTs) to help improve physical activity (PA). Typically, multiple BCTs are implemented simultaneously in a device, making it difficult to identify which BCTs specifically improve PA. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects of BCTs implemented on a smartwatch, the Fitbit, to determine how each technique promoted PA. METHODS: This study was a single-blind, pilot randomized controlled trial, in which 70 adults (n=44, 63% women; mean age 40.5, SD 12.56 years; closed user group) were allocated to 1 of 3 BCT conditions: self-monitoring (feedback on participants' own steps), goal setting (providing daily step goals), and social comparison (displaying daily steps achieved by peers). Each intervention lasted for 4 weeks (fully automated), during which participants wore a Fitbit and responded to day-to-day questionnaires regarding motivation. At pre- and postintervention time points (in-person sessions), levels and readiness for PA as well as different aspects of motivation were assessed. RESULTS: Participants showed excellent adherence (mean valid-wear time of Fitbit=26.43/28 days, 94%), and no dropout was recorded. No significant changes were found in self-reported total PA (dz<0.28, P=.40 for the self-monitoring group, P=.58 for the goal setting group, and P=.19 for the social comparison group). Fitbit-assessed step count during the intervention period was slightly higher in the goal setting and social comparison groups than in the self-monitoring group, although the effects did not reach statistical significance (P=.052 and P=.06). However, more than half (27/46, 59%) of the participants in the precontemplation stage reported progress to a higher stage across the 3 conditions. Additionally, significant increases were detected for several aspects of motivation (ie, integrated and external regulation), and significant group differences were identified for the day-to-day changes in external regulation; that is, the self-monitoring group showed a significantly larger increase in the sense of pressure and tension (as part of external regulation) than the goal setting group (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Fitbit-implemented BCTs promote readiness and motivation for PA, although their effects on PA levels are marginal. The BCT-specific effects were unclear, but preliminary evidence showed that self-monitoring alone may be perceived demanding. Combining self-monitoring with another BCT (or goal setting, at least) may be important for enhancing continuous engagement in PA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/87qnb/?view_only=f7b72d48bb5044eca4b8ce729f6b403b.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".