Feasibility and Usability of an Artificial Intelligence—Powered Gamification Intervention for Enhancing Physical Activity Among College Students: Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) is vital for physical and mental health, but many college students fail to meet recommended levels. Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered gamification interventions through mobile app have the potential to improve PA levels among Chinese college students. Objective: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and usability of an AI-powered gamification intervention. Methods: A quasi-experimental study spanning 2 months was conducted on a sample of college students aged 18 to 25 years old from 18 universities in Beijing. PA data were recorded using the ShouTi Fitness app, and participant engagement was evaluated through surveys. User satisfaction was gauged through the System Usability Scale, while the intervention's feasibility was assessed through Spearman rank correlation analysis, Mann-Whitney tests, and additional descriptive analyses. Results: As of July 2023, we enrolled 456 college students. In total, 18,073 PA sessions were recorded, with men completing 8068 sessions and women completing 10,055 sessions. The average PA intensity was 7 metabolic equivalent of energy (MET)s per session. Most participants preferred afternoon sessions and favored short-duration sessions, with men averaging 66 seconds per session and women 42 seconds. The System Usability Scale score for the intervention based on app is 65.2. Users responded positively to the integration of AI and gamification elements, including personalized recommendations, action recognition, smart grouping, dynamic management, collaborative, and competition. Specifically, 341 users (75%) found the AI features very interesting, 365 (80%) were motivated by the gamification elements, 364 (80%) reported that the intervention supported their fitness goals, and 365 (80%) considered the intervention reliable. A significant positive correlation was observed between the duration of individual PA and intervention duration for men (ρ=0.510, P<.001), although the correlation was weaker for women (ρ=0.258, P=.046). However, the frequency of PA declined after 35 days. Conclusions: This study provides pioneering evidence of the feasibility and usability of the AI-powered gamification intervention. While adherence was successfully demonstrated, further studies or interventions are needed to directly assess the impact on PA levels and focus on optimizing long-term adherence strategies and evaluating health outcomes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".