MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404234261 · doi:10.2196/59610

Influencing Factors and Implementation Pathways of Adherence Behavior in Intelligent Personalized Exercise Prescription: Qualitative Study

2024· article· en· W4404234261 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xuejie Xu, Guoli Zhang, Yuxin Xia, Hui Xie, Zenghui Ding, Hongyu Wang, Zuchang Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintQualitative researchMedical prescriptionmHealthPsychologyMedicineApplied psychologyPsychological interventionComputer scienceWorld Wide WebNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Personalized intelligent exercise prescriptions have demonstrated significant benefits in increasing physical activity and improving individual health. However, the health benefits of these prescriptions depend on long-term adherence. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the factors influencing adherence to personalized intelligent exercise prescriptions and explore the intrinsic relationship between individual behavioral motivation and adherence. This understanding can help improve adherence and maximize the effectiveness of such prescriptions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the factors influencing adherence behavior among middle-aged and older community residents who have been prescribed personalized exercise regimens through an electronic health promotion system. It also explores how these factors affect the initiation and maintenance of adherence behavior. METHODS: We used purposive sampling to conduct individual, face-to-face semistructured interviews based on the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) with 12 middle-aged and older community residents who had been following personalized exercise regimens for 8 months. These residents had received detailed exercise health education and guidance from staff. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using NVivo software through grounded theory. We then applied the TTM and multibehavioral motivation theory to analyze the factors influencing adherence. Additionally, the relationship between behavioral motivations and adherence was explored. RESULTS: Using the behavior change stages of the TTM, open coding yielded 21 initial categories, which were then organized into 8 main categories through axial coding: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, benefit motivation, pleasure motivation, achievement motivation, perceived barriers, self-regulation, and optimization strategies. Selective coding further condensed these 8 main categories into 3 core categories: "multitheory motivation," "obstacle factors," and "solution strategies." Using the coding results, a 3-level model of factors influencing adherence to intelligent personalized exercise prescriptions was developed. Based on this, an implementation path for promoting adherence to intelligent personalized exercise prescriptions was proposed by integrating the model with the TTM. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to personalized exercise prescriptions is influenced by both facilitating factors (eg, multibehavioral motivation, optimization strategies) and obstructive factors (eg, perceived barriers). Achieving and maintaining adherence is a gradual process, shaped by a range of motivations and factors. Personalized solutions, long-term support, feedback mechanisms, and social support networks are essential for promoting adherence. Future efforts should focus on enhancing adherence by strengthening multibehavioral motivation, optimizing solutions, and addressing barriers to improve overall adherence.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→