MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162295219 · doi:10.2196/79792

Characteristics of Tailored Text Messages that Maximize Physical Activity amongst Cardiac Rehabilitation Enrollees: Secondary Analysis of a Micro randomized Trial (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W7162295219 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Namratha Atluri, Kashvi Gupta, Tanima Basu, Evan Luff, Jieru Shi, Thomas Boyden, Bhramar Mukherjee, Sachin Kheterpal, Predrag Klasnja, Walter Dempsey, Brahmajee Nallamothu, Jessica Golbus

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialRehabilitationPhysical activitymHealthTelemedicineTelehealth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that text message-based mobile health interventions may enhance physical activity levels in patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation. The optimal characteristics of texts that lead to maximal patient engagement and drive meaningful behavioral change are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how text- and participant-level characteristics impact physical activity levels after text delivery. METHODS: The VALENTINE (Virtual Application-Supported Environment to Increase Exercise) study was a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate a mobile health intervention delivered to low- and moderate-risk adults enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation. Embedded within this study was a microrandomized trial focused on the effect of texts on physical activity levels among intervention participants. Participants in the intervention group received texts through a smartwatch (Apple Watch or Fitbit Versa) that were tailored to the time of day, day of the week (weekday vs weekend), weather, and time since enrollment in cardiac rehabilitation. Texts also differed in content type (walking vs antisedentary) and in the level of personalization (inclusion of the participant's name or not). Delivery was randomized at 4 user-selected time points daily, with participants having a 25% probability of receiving a text at any time point. The primary outcome was step count 60 minutes after a decision point. This analysis focuses on the text- and participant-level factors that moderated the intervention's effect on the primary outcome. Given potential measurement differences determined a priori, analyses were stratified by device type and phase of cardiac rehabilitation and adjusted for age, sex, and baseline activity status using a generalization of regression analysis. RESULTS: More than 70,552 randomizations occurred in 108 participants (mean age 59.5, SD 10.7 years; n=36, 33.3% female; n=19, 17.6% non-White; n=68, 63% Apple Watch users) over 6 months. Overall, no text characteristics (including personalization with the participant's name) or participant characteristics (including baseline physical activity) consistently impacted text responsiveness for either device type. Although the findings were not consistently significant between device types and across phases of the trial, there was a trend toward increased responsiveness to texts that promoted walking (compared to antisedentary texts) and that were delivered to younger (aged <65 years) and male participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized clinical trial, we found that tailored texts improved physical activity levels among cardiac rehabilitation enrollees in the initiation phase, but this effect was not explained by text- or participant-level moderators. Additional work is needed to explore the impact of tailoring based on an extended set of personal and environmental factors to optimize the delivery and efficacy of text message-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04587882; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04587882. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1016/j.ahj.2022.02.012.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→