MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409292096 · doi:10.2196/51707

College Community–Based Physical Activity Support at a Public University During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Longitudinal Analysis of Intra- Versus Interpersonal Components for Uptake and Outcome Association

2025· article· en· W4409292096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Garrett I. Ash, Selene Mak, Adrian Haughton, Madilyn Augustine, Phillip Bodurtha, Robert S. Axtell, Beatrice Borsari, Jason Liu, Shaoke Lou, Lisa M. Fucito, Sangchoon Jeon, Matthew Stults‐Kolehmainen, Mark Gerstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsPreprintCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GerontologyMedicineDemographyInternal medicineSociologyComputer scienceDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background College students are vulnerable to setting long-term trajectories of low physical activity (PA) but are reachable via mobile health fitness tracking (eg, mobile health step counting) and interpersonal support tailored to the college community. However, no studies have statistically isolated the appeal and influence of these intra- and interpersonal components in college-based PA interventions. Objective This study retrospectively examined a college-based PA promotion program at a northeast US public university during the COVID-19 pandemic to (1) test the impact of student status on the use of intervention components and (2) determine whether such use was associated with successful retention and goal achievement in the program. Methods The university used a commercial platform for a 30-day PA promotion program during April 2021 with intrapersonal (step-tracker syncing, education, self-monitoring, and motivational messaging) and interpersonal (friend interactions and team games) components. App use was operationalized as intrapersonal (frequency of opening app, education, and self-monitoring) and interpersonal (friends made in-app and team affiliation and size). Results Campus-wide emails elicited sign-up by 156 undergraduate students, 57 graduate students, and 126 faculty and staff members. Objective 1 yielded the following results: undergraduates used the app less frequently (median 0.8, IQR 0.4-1.7 times per day) than other groups (graduate students: median 1.4, IQR 0.7-2.7 times per day; P=.01; faculty: median 1.3, IQR 0.7-2.7 times per day, H2=14.5; P=.001) but made the same number of friends (median 1-2) and teammates (median 8-9; P=.77 for friends and P=.93 for teammates). Objective 2 yielded the following results: most participants (313/335, 93.4%; 95% CI 90%-96%) were retained for the first 7 days, but by 30 days, retention dropped, most notably for undergraduate students (82/154, 53.2%; 95% CI 45%-61%), followed by graduate students (39/56, 70%; 95% CI 56%-81%) and faculty and staff (93/125, 74.4%; 95% CI 66%-82%; χ22=12.6; P<.001). Retention was associated with app engagement frequency (model hazard ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.43-0.72; P<.001) and affiliation with a team having high median app engagement and a large size (intracluster correlation coefficient 0.064, 95% CI 0.001-0.164, P=.05). Meeting a daily step goal was associated with app engagement frequency (β=.72, SE=0.21; P=.001), number of friends (β=.40, SE 0.20; P=.04), and an initial motive of maintaining or increasing (rather than starting) PA (β=.99, SE=0.21; P<.001). Conclusions College students, compared with faculty and staff, used the app less frequently, used the app for a shorter duration before abandonment, and met the step goal on fewer days. Engagement with the program was associated with longer retention and better PA outcomes, which were critically modified by the interpersonal engagement. These findings suggest that college students using virtual PA support during times of physical isolation could benefit from more tailored implementation strategies (eg, timed prompts and team reassignments).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→