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

BackgroundWhile 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.ObjectiveThis 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.Study Design and MethodsNinety-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.ResultsMixed-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).ConclusionThe 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.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01516411

Comparing the Validity of a GPS Monitor and a Smartphone Application to Measure Physical Activity

“…Sufficient evidence exists to support the positive effect of these programs with the use of new technologies, especially when these are combined with other research approaches, such as face to face interventions. For example, King and colleagues 6 used three mobile applications to change the physical (in)activity and sedentary behavior of 95 underactive adults during an 8 week intervention program, and the results provided initial support for promoting PA and reducing sedentary behavior. Also Laurson, Welk and Eisenmann 7 asked 111 children to wear pedometers over a seven day period and record their steps.…”

An interpretable health behavioral intervention policy for mobile device users

“…For example, based on the different motivational frames (e.g., emotional, social, and informational) [47], the adaptive and interpretable feedback would still need to be further tailored in different ways to engage and “nudge” the users more effectively. This is also aligned with the interest of the greater healthcare community in the pursuit of the vision in patient-centered care [48, 49].…”

Climate change and the health of older people in Australia: A scoping review on the role of mobile applications (apps) in ameliorating impact

“…Data extraction was undertaken using a descriptive‐narrative approach . There were 35 selected articles . Tables were used to collate and summarise the data, and these data were shared within the research team.…”