MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416585228 · doi:10.2196/80090

Evaluating Causal and Noncausal Text Messages to Promote Physical Activity in Adults: Randomized Pilot Study

2025· article· en· W4416585228 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elena Korshakova, Samantha Kleinberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityIntervention (counseling)Value (mathematics)Causality (physics)Text messageRandomized controlled trialAction (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity increases the risk of chronic disease and reduces life expectancy, yet adherence to physical activity (PA) guidelines remains low. SMS text messages are promising for promoting PA, but it is not clear what type of messaging is most effective. Messages with causal information, which explain why a recommendation is being made, may be more persuasive than messages containing only recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of causal versus noncausal SMS text messages for promoting PA in US adults. METHODS: In this pilot study, we randomized US adults (n=28 in the analytic sample) aged 18-64 years to receive causal or noncausal SMS text messages roughly every other day for 2 weeks, following a 1-week baseline. PA was measured using Empatica wristbands during intervention and baseline periods, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short Form (IPAQ-SF) at baseline, postintervention, and 4 weeks later. The primary outcome was the change in mean metabolic equivalent of tasks (METs) per minute from baseline to intervention. The secondary outcomes were (1) PA differences on intervention and nonintervention days (mean METs/min), (2) changes in self-reported METs per week between surveyed periods, and (3) participant satisfaction. We used a linear mixed model to analyze our primary outcome, the Mann-Whitney U test and the chi-square test of independence to analyze quantitative secondary outcomes, and qualitative coding to analyze survey data. RESULTS: The causal message group had a greater increase in mean METs per minute from baseline to intervention compared to the noncausal group with a moderate effect size (P=.01; Cohen d=0.54). In the causal group, PA was significantly higher on SMS text message days (mean 2.46, SD 0.12 METs/min) compared to nonmessage days (mean 2.25, SD 0.15 METs/min; P=.02), while there was no difference in the noncausal group (P=.54). No significant between-group difference was found in self-reported PA or satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Causal information that links suggested PA to health outcomes can increase the effectiveness of SMS text messages promoting PA, indicating the value of incorporating causal information into intervention design. Our results provide further basis for just-in-time interventions, as activity was higher on message days. Further work is needed to better personalize message content and timing to maintain participant engagement.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.426 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→