MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399998023 · doi:10.2196/55722

Applying Meaning and Self-Determination Theory to the Development of a Web-Based mHealth Physical Activity Intervention: Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study

2024· article· en· W4399998023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie Ann Hooker, A. Lauren Crain, Jule Muegge, Rebecca C. Rossom, Nicolaas P. Pronk, Dhavan Prasad Pasumarthi, Gopikrishna Kunisetty, Kevin S. Masters

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsmHealthCompetence (human resources)Psychological interventionPsychologyGrounded theoryApplied psychologyMeaning (existential)Behavior changeSelf-determination theorySalience (neuroscience)Social psychologyQualitative researchAutonomyPsychotherapistCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Meaning in life is positively associated with health, well-being, and longevity, which may be partially explained by engagement in healthier behaviors, including physical activity (PA). However, promoting awareness of meaning is a behavior change strategy that has not been tested in previous PA interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop, refine, and pilot-test the Meaningful Activity Program (MAP; MAP to Health), a web-based mobile health PA intervention, theoretically grounded in meaning and self-determination theory, for insufficiently active middle-aged adults. METHODS: Following an iterative user-testing and refinement phase, we used a single-arm double baseline proof-of-concept pilot trial design. Participants included 35 insufficiently active adults in midlife (aged 40-64 years) interested in increasing their PA. After a 4-week baseline period, participants engaged in MAP to Health for 8 weeks. MAP to Health used a web-based assessment and just-in-time SMS text messaging to individualize the intervention; promote meaning salience; support the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness; and increase PA. Participants completed measures of the hypothesized mechanisms of behavior change, including meaning salience, needs satisfaction, and autonomous motivation at pretest (-4 weeks), baseline (0 weeks), midpoint (4 weeks), and posttest (8 weeks) time points, and wore accelerometers for the study duration. At the end of the intervention, participants completed a qualitative interview. Mixed models compared changes in behavioral mechanisms during the intervention to changes before the intervention. Framework matrix analyses were used to analyze qualitative data. RESULTS: Participants were aged 50.8 (SD 8.2) years on average; predominantly female (27/35, 77%); and 20% (7/35) Asian, 9% (3/35) Black or African American, 66% (23/35) White, and 6% (2/35) other race. Most (32/35, 91%) used MAP to Health for ≥5 of 8 weeks. Participants rated the intervention as easy to use (mean 4.3, SD 0.8 [out of 5.0]) and useful (mean 4.3, SD 0.6). None of the hypothesized mechanisms changed significantly during the preintervention phase (Cohen d values <0.15). However, autonomy (P<.001; Cohen d=0.76), competence (P<.001; Cohen d=0.65), relatedness (P=.004; Cohen d=0.46), autonomous motivation (P<.001; Cohen d=0.37), and meaning salience (P<.001; Cohen d=0.40) increased significantly during the intervention. Comparison of slopes before the intervention versus during the intervention revealed that increases during the intervention were significantly greater for autonomy (P=.002), competence (P<.001), and meaning salience (P=.001); however, slopes were not significantly different for relatedness (P=.10) and autonomous motivation (P=.17). Qualitative themes offered suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: MAP to Health was acceptable to participants, feasible to deliver, and associated with increases in the target mechanisms of behavior change. This is the first intervention to use meaning as a behavior change strategy in a PA intervention. Future research will test the efficacy of the intervention in increasing PA compared to a control condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→