Cited by 56Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsPhysical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Effect and Process Evaluation of a Smartphone App to Promote an Active Lifestyle in Lower Educated Working Young Adults: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Simons, Dorien, De Bourdeaudhuij, Ilse, Clarys, Peter, De Cocker, Katrien, Vandelanotte, Corneel, Deforche, Benedicte·2018·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile technologies have great potential to promote an active lifestyle in lower educated working young adults, an underresearched target group at a high risk of low activity levels. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to examine the effect and process evaluation of the newly developed evidence- and theory-based smartphone app "Active Coach" on the objectively measured total daily physical activity; self-reported, context-specific physical activity; and self-reported psychosocial variables among lower educated working young adults. METHODS: We recruited 130 lower educated working young adults in this 2-group cluster randomized controlled trial and assessed outcomes at baseline, posttest (baseline+9 weeks), and follow-up (posttest+3 months). Intervention participants (n=60) used the Active Coach app (for 9 weeks) combined with a Fitbit activity tracker. Personal goals, practical tips, and educational facts were provided to encourage physical activity. The control group received print-based generic physical activity information. Both groups wore accelerometers for objective measurement of physical activity, and individual interviews were conducted to assess the psychosocial variables and context-specific physical activity. Furthermore, intervention participants were asked process evaluation questions and generalized linear mixed models and descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: No significant intervention effects were found for objectively measured physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and self-reported psychosocial variables (all P>.05). Intervention participants evaluated the Active Coach app and the combined use with the Fitbit wearable as self-explanatory (36/51, 70.6%), user friendly (40/51, 78.4%), and interesting (34/51, 66.7%). Throughout the intervention, we observed a decrease in the frequency of viewing graphical displays in the app (P<.001); reading the tips, facts, and goals (P<.05); and wearing the Fitbit wearable (P<.001). Few intervention participants found the tips and facts motivating (10/41, 24.4%), used them to be physically active (8/41, 19.6%), and thought they were tailored to their lifestyle (7/41, 17.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of significant intervention effects might be due to low continuous user engagement. Advice or feedback that was not perceived as adequately tailored and the difficulty to compete with many popular commercial apps on young people's smartphones may be responsible for a decrease in the engagement. A stand-alone app does not seem sufficient to promote an active lifestyle among lower educated working young adults; therefore, multicomponent interventions (using both technological and human support), as well as context-specific sensing to provide tailored advice, might be needed in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02948803; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02948803 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/71OPFwaoA).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/10003

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 90 · Cited by 56

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [19]World Health Organization 2011 2018-07-31 mHealth New horizons for health through mobile technologies http://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_mhealth_web.pdf 30307724
  2. [42]World Health Organization Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010 2011 26180873 26180873
  3. [47]Michie S JM. Behavior Change Techniques 2011 Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine Springer New York 182 7
  4. [57]Vandelanotte C, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Sallis J., Philippaerts R., Sjöström M. Reliability and validity of a computerised and Dutch version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2005 2 63 75

Authors
Simons, D., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Clarys, P., De Cocker, K., Vandelanotte, C., & Deforche, B.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • Central Queensland University (AU)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Simons, Dorien
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2018-08-24
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
e10003
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2806682309
Cited by
56
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
12.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) (acceptedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Acquire (CQUniversity) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart Foundation of Australia (ID100427, 100427)
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO11/PDO/097, FWO11, 11U8114N)
  • Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
mobile application, physical activity promotion, wearable devices, user engagement, tailoring, process evaluation, psychosocial factors, accelerometer-measured activity, mobile health intervention, low educational attainment, sedentary lifestyle, self-explanation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review