Design of a Temporally Augmented Text Messaging Bot to Improve Adolescents’ Physical Activity and Engagement: Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital interventions hold promise for improving physical activity in adolescents. However, a lack of empirical decision points (eg, timing of intervention prompts) is an evidence gap in the optimization of digital physical activity interventions. OBJECTIVE: The study examined the feasibility and acceptability, as well as the technical and functional reliability, of and participant engagement with a digital intervention that aligned its decision points to occur during times when adolescents typically exercise. This study also explored the impact of the intervention on adolescents' moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) levels. Consistent with the Obesity-Related Behavioral Interventions Trials (ORBIT) model, the primary goal of the study was to identify opportunities to refine the intervention for preparation for future trials. METHODS: Ten adolescents completed a 7-day baseline monitoring period and Temporally Augmented Goal Setting (TAGS), a 20-day digital physical activity intervention that included a midday self-monitoring message that occurred when adolescents typically start to exercise (3 PM). Participants wore an accelerometer to measure their MVPA during the intervention. Participants completed questionnaires about the acceptability of the platform. Rates of recruitment and attrition (feasibility), user and technological errors (reliability), and engagement (average number of text message responses to the midday self-monitoring message) were calculated. The investigation team performed multilevel models to explore the effect of TAGS on MVPA levels from preintervention to intervention. In addition, as exploratory analyses, participants were matched to adolescents who previously completed a similar intervention, Network Underwritten Dynamic Goals Engine (NUDGE), without the midday self-monitoring message, to explore differences in MVPA between interventions. RESULTS: The TAGS intervention was mostly feasible, acceptable, and technically and functionally reliable. Adolescents showed adequate levels of engagement. Preintervention to intervention changes in MVPA were small (approximately a 2-minute change). Exploratory analyses revealed no greater benefit of TAGS on MVPA compared with NUDGE. CONCLUSIONS: TAGS shows promise for future trials with additional refinements given its feasibility, acceptability, technical and functional reliability, participants' rates of engagement, and the relative MVPA improvements. Opportunities to strengthen TAGS include reducing the burden of wearing devices and incorporating of other strategies at the 3 PM decision point. Further optimization of TAGS will inform the design of a Just-in-Time Adaptive Intervention for adolescent physical activity and prepare the intervention for more rigorous testing.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".