A Combined HAPA And Mhealth Sedentary Behaviour RCT In Adults With T2D: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Engaging in high amounts of sedentary behaviour (SB) has been detrimentally associated with physical and mental health. Adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have high levels of SB and are more sedentary than those without. Interventions that aim to reduce and/or break SB in this population are needed. The primary aim of this pilot study was to develop an effective, feasible, and acceptable intervention to reduce SB in adults with T2D. METHODS: Participants (n = 10) were randomly assigned into either the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) intervention group or control group. The intervention group received a Zoom behavioural counselling session that consisted of education and creating personalized action and coping plans, bi-weekly updating of the plans on the SEMA3 mobile application, and tailored text messages. Both groups were asked to fill out questionnaires on the SEMA3 mobile application at week 0, 2, 4, 6 and 12 (6 week follow up). Qualitative data on participants’ overall experience engaging in the 6-week SB program was collected at week 6 in a post-positive paradigm using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: The pilot study consisted of 10 participants (5 intervention and 5 control). Group (intervention and control) by time (week 0, 2, 4, and 6 [and 12]) interaction effects were large (np2 > 0.14), non-significant (p > 0.05), and favoured the intervention group for average daily total time spent in SBs, break frequency, and HAPA constructs. Interaction effects were large (np2 > 0.14), non-significant (p > 0.05), and favoured the control group for break duration and screen time. Interaction effects were small (np2 < 0.06), non-significant (p > 0.05), and favoured the intervention group for the quality-of-life outcomes. Qualitatively, participants in the intervention group felt that the SB program was effective in reducing and breaking up their SB and they would recommend the SB program to other adults with T2D. Further, there was good retention (90%), completion (93%), and adherence (100%) to all aspects of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The HAPA-based intervention appears to be feasible and acceptable for both the intervention recipients, research participants (adults with T2D), and researchers. However, completion of a powered RCT is needed to come to concrete conclusions about effectiveness.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".