Cited by 68Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

A Group-Based Mobile Application to Increase Adherence in Exercise and Nutrition Programs: A Factorial Design Feasibility Study

Open access
Du, Honglu, Venkatakrishnan, Anusha, Youngblood, Gregory Michael, Ram, Ashwin, Pirolli, Peter·2016·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Novel methods of promoting self-monitoring and social support are needed to ensure long-term maintenance of behavior change. In this paper, we directly investigate the effects of group support in an exercise and nutrition program delivered by an mHealth application called Fittle. OBJECTIVE: Our first specific study aim was to explore whether social support improved adherence in wellness programs. Our second specific study aim was to assess whether media types (ePaper vs mobile) were associated with different levels of compliance and adherence to wellness programs. The third aim was to assess whether the use of an mHealth application led to positive changes to participants' eating behavior, physical activity, and stress level, compared to traditional paper-based programs. METHODS: A 2 × 2 (eg, Media: Mobile vs ePaper × Group Type: Team vs Solo) factorial design feasibility study was conducted. A sample of 124 volunteers who were interested in improving eating behavior, increasing physical activity, or reducing stress participated in this study. The study duration was 8 weeks. All groups were self-directed with no ongoing human input from the research team. RESULTS: Participants in ePaper conditions had higher attrition rates compared to participants in Mobile conditions, χ3(2)=9.96, P=.02 (N=124). Participants in Mobile conditions reported their compliance with a much higher frequency closer to the time of challenge activity completion (2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test comparing distributions was highly significant-KS=0.33, P<.001 [N=63]). Participants in ePaper conditions had a much higher frequency of guessing while reporting as compared with those in Mobile conditions-χ1(2)=25.25, P<.001 (N=63). Together, these findings suggest that the mobile app allowed a more accurate method to report and track health behaviors over a longer period than traditional ePaper-based diaries or log books. There was a significant difference in the overall compliance score for Mobile-Solo (Mean [SD] 0.30 [0.39]) and Mobile-Team (Mean [SD] 0.49 [0.35]) conditions (t50.82=1.94, P=.05). This suggests that working in a team increased participants' overall compliance within Fittle. Survival analysis showed that participants assigned to Team conditions are 66% more likely to engage longer with mHealth app-based intervention than those assigned to the Solo condition. Overall, participants across all groups reported some positive changes in eating behavior, physical activity, and stress level; however, participants in the Mobile-Solo condition reported higher perceived stress levels at the end of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The team-based Fittle app is an acceptable and feasible wellness behavior change intervention and a full randomized controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of such an intervention is warranted.

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/mhealth.4900

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Du, H., Venkatakrishnan, A., Youngblood, G. M., Ram, A., & Pirolli, P.
Affiliations
Palo Alto Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
Du, Honglu
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2016-01-15
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
e4
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2233877151
Cited by
68
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5
FWCI
13.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
mobile health, mobile application, exercise adherence, social support, group intervention, self-monitoring, dietary habits, physical activity, stress reduction, wellness programs, attrition, self-guided intervention, behavior maintenance, feasibility study

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