Implementation of Behavior Change Theories and Techniques for Physical Activity Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Physical activity (PA) is a key modifiable risk factor for chronic diseases, yet many adults do not meet PA guidelines. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs), a type of mobile health (mHealth) intervention, offer tailored support based on an individual’s context to promote PA. Integrating behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theories is critical to the design of effective mHealth interventions. Understanding which BCTs and theories work best can inform future JITAI development. (2) Objective: The objective of this study is to examine how behavior change theories and BCTs are implemented in mHealth PA JITAIs and assess their relationship with PA-related outcomes. (3) Methods: This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A total of 29 studies were included. (4) Results: The most commonly used BCTs include prompts/cues (n = 29), goal-setting (behavior) (n = 15), and feedback on behavior (n = 14), while self-determination theory (n = 4) and social cognitive theory (n = 4) are the most commonly used theories. However, there is insufficient evidence as to which theories and BCTs are most effective in eliciting effective PA behavior change. (5) Conclusions: Clearer reporting and integration of BCTs and behavior change theories, along with optimized user interfaces, are needed to improve the intervention quality, replicability, and long-term effectiveness of PA JITAIs.
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 | 0.060 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".