MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416279400 · doi:10.2196/65558

A Refined Mobile Health Intervention (SMARTFAMILY2.0) to Promote Physical Activity and Healthy Eating in a Family Setting: Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4416279400 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janis Fiedler, Kathrin Wunsch, Sebastian Hubenschmid, Harald Reiterer, Britta Renner, Alexander Wöll

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPhysical activityHealthy eatingmHealthIntervention (counseling)Health promotionSedentary behaviorHealth behaviorActivity tracker

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Many mobile health (mHealth) apps focus on promoting physical activity (PA) and healthy eating (HE). However, there is limited empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness in initiating and sustaining behavior change, particularly among children and adolescents. Considering that behavior is influenced by social contexts, it is essential to take core settings like family dynamics into account when designing mHealth apps. Objective The purpose of this study was to further develop and refine the SMARTFAMILY (SF) app targeting PA and HE in a collective family-based setting by enhancing design and usability, as well as by adding gamification aspects, health literacy, and just-in-time adaptive interventions to the first version of the app. Methods The SF2.0 app, based on behavior change theories and techniques, was developed, implemented, and evaluated. The app was used in a collective family setting, with family members using it individually and cooperatively. In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, the intervention group (IG) used the app for 3 consecutive weeks, while the control group (CG) received no treatment. Primary outcomes included PA measured through self-reports and accelerometry, as well as self-reported fruit and vegetable intake (FVI) for HE. Secondary outcomes included intrinsic motivation, behavior-specific self-efficacy, and the Family Health Climate. A follow-up assessment (T2) was conducted 4 weeks after the postmeasurement (T1) to assess intervention effects. Multilevel analyses were performed in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), considering the hierarchical structure of individuals (level 1) within families (level 2). Results Overall, 55 families (28 CG, 105/209; 27 IG, 104/209 participants) were recruited for the study. In total, 3 families (3 CG, n=12) chose to drop out of the study due to personal reasons before T0. Overall, no evidence for meaningful and statistically significant increases in PA was observed in favor of the IG of our physically active sample. However, the app elucidated positive effects in favor of the IG for FVI diary (T0-T1; P=.03), joint PA (T0-T1; P=.02 and T0-T2; P<.001), and joint family meals (T0-T1; P=.004). Conclusions The SF2.0 trial evaluated an mHealth intervention designed to promote PA and HE within families. Despite incorporating a theoretical foundation, several behavior change techniques based on family life, and gamification and just-in-time adaptive intervention features, the intervention did not significantly increase PA levels among physically active participants. FVI, joint PA, and joint meals were improved within the IG. Previous studies on digital health interventions have produced mixed results, and family-based mHealth interventions remain rare, with limited focus on whole-family behavior and randomized controlled trials. To enhance intervention effectiveness, future app development could consider incorporating even more advanced features and should focus on inactive participants. Further research is needed to better understand intervention engagement and tailor mHealth approaches for primary prevention efforts. Trial Registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00010415; https://www.drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00010415 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/20534

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)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.432 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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