MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415714941 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.28.25339013

Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Feasibility Testing of a Physical Activity Micropattern Intervention Among Socioeconomically Diverse Women

2025· preprint· W4415714941 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas A. Koemel, Maria Bissett, Gemma C. Ryde, Matthew Ahmadi, Kristina Atsiaris, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Sam Liu, Carol Maher, Kar Hau Chong, Adrian Bauman, Mouna Sawan, Cecilie Thøgersen‐Ntoumani, Cindy M. Gray, Jason M. R. Gill, Emmanuel Stamatakis

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUniversity of Glasgow
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusPhysical activityPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialWearable computerSmartphone application

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Most physical activity interventions adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, often developed and tested in higher socioeconomic groups, with little consideration of barriers experienced by women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Micropatterns, defined as brief bursts of moderate-to-vigorous incidental physical activity lasting under three minutes, represent a form of everyday movement that requires minimal time, equipment, or planning, making them a promising target for intervention. This randomized controlled study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of a co-designed wearable-based micropatterns intervention aimed at increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among socioeconomically diverse women. Methods A multi-centre, single-blinded, 6-week randomised controlled feasibility study was conducted among women from Sydney, Australia and Glasgow, UK aged ≥30 years who self-reported no leisure time physical activity and could comfortably participate in activities of daily living. To ensure socioeconomic diversity, we used quota-based recruitment with area-level and individual-level indicators of socioeconomic status. Participants were randomised to one of three intervention arms; 1) Smartphone application only (APP); 2) smartphone application combined with a wearable device (Fitbit Inspire 3; W-APP); and 3) smartphone application and wearable device, supplemented by a social community component that included two in-person workshops and online forums (W-APP-C). Feasibility was assessed as completion rates of the study and follow-up surveys were conducted to assess the acceptability of the intervention. Wrist-worn accelerometry was collected at pre- and post-intervention to assess the potential effectiveness of the intervention. Results Forty-three participants (mean age (SD); 54.8 (10.7) years) were recruited across both sites (APP n = 13; W-APP n = 17; W-APP-C n = 13). When taking into consideration individual-level indicators of socioeconomic status including income, number of dependents, and educational attainment, there was diverse representation across low (20.9%), medium (48.8%), and high (30.2%) socioeconomic groups. Completion of the 6-week intervention was high across both intervention sites and all three trial arms (86%). Qualitative feedback from both trial sites indicated high satisfaction, the majority of the participants thought the intervention was enjoyable (97.9%), user-friendly (69.9%), the wearable technology increased motivation to do activity (87.5%), and the community workshops were beneficial (75%). Across all participants, there was an average daily increase of 9.8 (27.8) min/day MVPA following the intervention. The greatest increase in MVPA was observed in the W-APP-C group (15.5 (23.1) min/day), followed by the APP group (11.4 (25.5) min/day), and the W-APP group 2.6 (32.1) min/day. Conclusions This multi-centre randomised controlled feasibility trial highlights the feasibility and acceptability of a wearable-based micropattern intervention in women from socioeconomically and culturally diverse backgrounds.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→