Human Factors in AI-Driven Digital Solutions for Increasing Physical Activity: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance physical activity (PA) interventions. However, human factors (HFs) play a pivotal role in the successful integration of AI into mobile health (mHealth) solutions for promoting PA. Understanding and optimizing the interaction between individuals and AI-driven mHealth apps is essential for achieving the desired outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review and describe the current evidence on the HFs in AI-driven digital solutions for increasing PA. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching for publications containing terms related to PA, HFs, and AI in the titles and abstracts across 3 databases-PubMed, Embase, and IEEE Xplore-and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they were primary studies describing an AI-based solution aimed at increasing PA, and results from testing the solution were reported. Studies that did not meet these criteria were excluded. Additionally, we searched the references in the included articles for relevant research. The following data were extracted from included studies and incorporated into a qualitative synthesis: bibliographic information, study characteristics, population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and AI-related information. The certainty of the evidence in the included studies was evaluated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RESULTS: A total of 15 studies published between 2015 and 2023 involving 899 participants aged approximately between 19 and 84 years, 60.7% (546/899) of whom were female participants, were included in this review. The interventions lasted between 2 and 26 weeks in the included studies. Recommender systems were the most commonly used AI technology in digital solutions for PA (10/15 studies), followed by conversational agents (4/15 studies). User acceptability and satisfaction were the HFs most frequently evaluated (5/15 studies each), followed by usability (4/15 studies). Regarding automated data collection for personalization and recommendation, most systems involved fitness trackers (5/15 studies). The certainty of the evidence analysis indicates moderate certainty of the effectiveness of AI-driven digital technologies in increasing PA (eg, number of steps, distance walked, or time spent on PA). Furthermore, AI-driven technology, particularly recommender systems, seems to positively influence changes in PA behavior, although with very low certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Current research highlights the potential of AI-driven technologies to enhance PA, though the evidence remains limited. Longer-term studies are necessary to assess the sustained impact of AI-driven technologies on behavior change and habit formation. While AI-driven digital solutions for PA hold significant promise, further exploration into optimizing AI's impact on PA and effectively integrating AI and HFs is crucial for broader benefits. Thus, the implications for innovation management involve conducting long-term studies, prioritizing diversity, ensuring research quality, focusing on user experience, and understanding the evolving role of AI in PA promotion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".