Dataset Information

Effects of Three Motivationally Targeted Mobile Device Applications on Initial Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Change in Midlife and Older Adults: A Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: While there has been an explosion of mobile device applications (apps) promoting healthful behaviors, including physical activity and sedentary patterns, surprisingly few have been based explicitly on strategies drawn from behavioral theory and evidence.This study provided an initial 8-week evaluation of three different customized physical activity-sedentary behavior apps drawn from conceptually distinct motivational frames in comparison with a commercially available control app.Ninety-five underactive adults ages 45 years and older with no prior smartphone experience were randomized to use an analytically framed app, a socially framed app, an affectively framed app, or a diet-tracker control app. Daily physical activity and sedentary behavior were measured using the smartphone's built-in accelerometer and daily self-report measures.Mixed-effects models indicated that, over the 8-week period, the social app users showed significantly greater overall increases in weekly accelerometry-derived moderate to vigorous physical activity relative to the other three arms (P values for between-arm differences = .04-.005; Social vs. Control app: d = 1.05, CI = 0.44,1.67; Social vs. Affect app: d = 0.89, CI = 0.27,1.51; Social vs. Analytic app: d = 0.89, CI = 0.27,1.51), while more variable responses were observed among users of the other two motivationally framed apps. Social app users also had significantly lower overall amounts of accelerometry-derived sedentary behavior relative to the other three arms (P values for between-arm differences = .02-.001; Social vs. Control app: d = 1.10,CI = 0.48,1.72; Social vs. Affect app: d = 0.94, CI = 0.32,1.56; Social vs. Analytic app: d = 1.24, CI = 0.59,1.89). Additionally, Social and Affect app users reported lower overall sitting time compared to the other two arms (P values for between-arm differences < .001; Social vs. Control app: d = 1.59,CI = 0.92, 2.25; Social vs. Analytic app: d = 1.89,CI = 1.17, 2.61; Affect vs. Control app: d = 1.19,CI = 0.56, 1.81; Affect vs. Analytic app: d = 1.41,CI = 0.74, 2.07).The results provide initial support for the use of a smartphone-delivered social frame in the early induction of both physical activity and sedentary behavior changes. The information obtained also sets the stage for further investigation of subgroups that might particularly benefit from different motivationally framed apps in these two key health promotion areas.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01516411.

SUBMITTER: King AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4924838 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of Three Motivationally Targeted Mobile Device Applications on Initial Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Change in Midlife and Older Adults: A Randomized Trial.

King Abby C AC Hekler Eric B EB Grieco Lauren A LA Winter Sandra J SJ Sheats Jylana L JL Buman Matthew P MP Banerjee Banny B Robinson Thomas N TN Cirimele Jesse J

PloS one 20160628 6

<h4>Background</h4>While there has been an explosion of mobile device applications (apps) promoting healthful behaviors, including physical activity and sedentary patterns, surprisingly few have been based explicitly on strategies drawn from behavioral theory and evidence.<h4>Objective</h4>This study provided an initial 8-week evaluation of three different customized physical activity-sedentary behavior apps drawn from conceptually distinct motivational frames in comparison with a commercially a ...[more]

PMID: 27352250

Similar Datasets

Project description:Women in midlife experience health risks that could be mitigated by regular physical activity and reduced sedentary time, but this population rarely achieves physical activity levels that would protect their health. As a result, many behavioral interventions are designed to promote physical activity in this population, which are purportedly guided by theoretical models of health behavior (change) and activate an associated set of behavior change techniques (BCTs). The efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions appear to be limited, however, raising questions about their design and adaptation for women in midlife. Several aspects of these interventions are currently unclear. Specifically, which women they target (i.e., how "midlife" and "sedentary" or "inactive" are defined), which theoretical models or behavior BCTs are used, and how BCTs are activated in such interventions. A synthesis of this information would be useful as an initial step toward improving physical activity interventions for this at-risk group, and thus, represented the goal of the present scoping review. Eligibility required publication in a peer-reviewed journal in English between 2000 and 2021, inclusion of only women in midlife who did not have any medical or other restrictions on their physical activity (e.g., cancer diagnosis), and free-living physical activity or sedentary behavior as the target outcome (with associated assessment). Of the 4,410 initial results, 51 articles met inclusion criteria, and these described 36 unique interventions. More than half of the articles (59%) named an underlying theoretical model and interventions included an average of 3.76 identifiable BCTs (range 1-11). However, descriptions of many interventions were limited and did not provide enough detail to determine whether or how specific BCTs were activated. Interventions also used a wide range of inclusion criteria for age range and starting activity level, which has implications for targeting/tailoring and effectiveness, and many interventions focused on marginalized populations (e.g., women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, those un- or under-insured). The present review identifies some strengths and highlights important limitations of existing literature, as well as key opportunities for advancing the design and potential utility of physical activity interventions for women in midlife.Systematic review registrationhttps://osf.io/g8tuc.

Project description:BackgroundOur aim was to describe and explore older adults’ device-measured sedentary behavior and physical activity (PA) pattern by sex, age, education, marital status, body mass index, and physical function; and to assess agreement regarding fulfillment of PA recommendations, i.e. 150?min/week of moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA), between device-measured and self-reported PA.MethodWe included 656 older adults (64% women), aged 66, 81–87 or???90?years from a Swedish population-based cohort study. The activPAL3 accelerometer provided information on sedentary behavior (sedentary time, sedentary bouts, sit-to-stand transitions) and PA. Stepping ?100 steps/min was considered MVPA; standing and stepping <?100 steps/min were considered light-intensity PA (LPA). Self-reported PA was compared with min/week in MVPA and steps/day.ResultsOn average, 60% of wear time was spent sedentary, 36% in LPA, and 4% in MVPA. Relative to men, women, had significantly (p?<?0.05) more sit-to-stand transitions, spent 33?min/day less sedentary and 27?min/day more in LPA, and were more likely to report meeting PA recommendations, but showed no difference in steps/day, MVPA, or sedentary bout duration. Older age was associated with more sedentary time, lower MVPA and fewer steps/day. The prevalence of meeting PA recommendations was 59% device-measured and 88% by self-report with limited agreement between methods (Cohen’s Kappa?=?0.21, Spearman’s rho?=?0.28). Age differences were much more pronounced with objective measures than by self-report.ConclusionsWe found significant sex differences in sedentary behavior and time in LPA in older adults, but not in MVPA, in contrast to previous findings. Sedentary time increased with age, with small differences in accumulation pattern. MVPA time was lower with older age, obesity, and poor physical function. A majority of the participants >?80?years did not meet the PA recommendations. Given the strong relationships between sedentary behavior, PA and health in older adults, programs are needed to address these behaviors. Agreement between device-measured and self-reported fulfillment of PA recommendations was limited. Device-based measurement adds value to PA studies, providing richer and different data than self-report.

Project description:BackgroundDevice-based measurements of physical behavior, using the current methods, place a large burden on participants. The Motus system could reduce this burden by removing the necessity for in-person meetings, replacing diaries written on paper with digital diaries, and increasing the automation of feedback generation.ObjectiveThis study aims to describe the development of the Motus system and evaluate its potential to reduce participant burden in a two-phase usability evaluation.MethodsMotus was developed around (1) a thigh-worn accelerometer with Bluetooth data transfer; (2) a smartphone app containing an attachment guide, a digital diary, and facilitating automated data transfer; (3) a cloud infrastructure for data storage; (4) an analysis software to generate feedback for participants; and (5) a web-based app for administrators. We recruited 19 adults with a mean age of 45 (SD 11; range 27-63) years, of which 11 were female, to assist in the two-phase evaluation of Motus. A total of 7 participants evaluated the usability of mockups for a smartphone app in phase 1. Participants interacted with the app while thinking aloud, and any issues raised were classified as critical, serious, or minor by observers. This information was used to create an improved and functional smartphone app for evaluation in phase 2. A total of 12 participants completed a 7-day free-living measurement with Motus in phase 2. On day 1, participants attempted 20 system-related tasks under observation, including registration on the study web page, reading the information letter, downloading and navigating the smartphone app, attaching an accelerometer on the thigh, and completing a diary entry for both work and sleep hours. Task completion success and any issues encountered were noted by the observer. On completion of the 7-day measurement, participants provided a rating from 0 to 100 on the System Usability Scale and participated in a semistructured interview aimed at understanding their experience in more detail.ResultsThe task completion rate for the 20 tasks was 100% for 13 tasks, >80% for 4 tasks, and <50% for 3 tasks. The average rating of system usability was 86 on a 0-100 scale. Thematic analysis indicated that participants perceived the system as easy to use and remember, and subjectively pleasing overall. Participants with shift work reported difficulty with entering sleep hours, and 66% (8/12) of the participants experienced slow data transfer between the app and the cloud infrastructure. Finally, a few participants desired a greater degree of detail in the generated feedback.ConclusionsOur two-phase usability evaluation indicated that the overall usability of the Motus system is high in free-living. Issues around the system's slow data transfer, participants with atypical work shifts, and the degree of automation and detail of generated feedback should be addressed in future iterations of the Motus system.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/35697.

Project description:BackgroundSmartphone applications provide new opportunities for secondary prevention healthcare. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if smartphone applications are effective at changing physical activity and sedentary behaviour in people with cardiovascular disease.MethodsSix electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Sports Discus and EMBASE) were searched from 2007 to October 2020. Cardiovascular disease secondary prevention physical activity or sedentary behaviour interventions were included where the primary element was a smartphone or tablet computer application (excluding SMS-only text-messaging). Study quality was assessed using validated tools appropriate for each study design. Random effects model was used and the pooled mean difference between post scores were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine differences based on diagnosis, sample size, age, intervention duration, activity tracker use, target behaviour, and self-report versus device-measured outcome.ResultsNineteen studies with a total of 1,543 participants were included (coronary heart disease, n = 10; hypertension, n = 4; stroke, n = 3; heart failure, n = 1; peripheral artery disease, n = 1). Risk of bias was rated as high. Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Only two controlled studies reported on sedentary behaviour. Smartphone applications produced a significant increase of 40.35 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity per week (7 studies; p = 0.04; 95% CI 1.03 to 79.67) and 2,390 steps per day (3 studies; p = 0.0007; 95% CI 1,006.9 to 3,791.2). Subgroup analyses found no difference when comparing diagnoses, sample size, activity tracker use, target behaviour and self-report versus device-measured outcome. Larger improvements in physical activity were noted in intervention durations of ≤3-months and participants ≥60yrs (95.35 mins.week-1; p = 0.05).ConclusionsSmartphone applications were effective in increasing physical activity in people with cardiovascular disease. Caution is warranted for the low-quality evidence, small sample and larger coronary heart disease representation. More rigorous research is needed to investigate the effect of smartphone applications across diagnoses and in sedentary behaviour.

Dataset Information

Effects of Three Motivationally Targeted Mobile Device Applications on Initial Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Change in Midlife and Older Adults: A Randomized Trial.

Publications

Effects of Three Motivationally Targeted Mobile Device Applications on Initial Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Change in Midlife and Older Adults: A Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets