PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Wearable activity trackers have become key players in mobile health practice as they offer various behavior change techniques (BCTs) to help improve physical activity (PA). Typically, multiple BCTs are implemented simultaneously in a device, making it difficult to identify which BCTs specifically improve PA.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects of BCTs implemented on a smartwatch, the Fitbit, to determine how each technique promoted PA.
METHODS: This study was a single-blind, pilot randomized controlled trial, in which 70 adults (n=44, 63% women; mean age 40.5, SD 12.56 years; closed user group) were allocated to 1 of 3 BCT conditions: self-monitoring (feedback on participants\' own steps), goal setting (providing daily step goals), and social comparison (displaying daily steps achieved by peers). Each intervention lasted for 4 weeks (fully automated), during which participants wore a Fitbit and responded to day-to-day questionnaires regarding motivation. At pre- and postintervention time points (in-person sessions), levels and readiness for PA as well as different aspects of motivation were assessed.
RESULTS: Participants showed excellent adherence (mean valid-wear time of Fitbit=26.43/28 days, 94%), and no dropout was recorded. No significant changes were found in self-reported total PA (dz<0.28, P=.40 for the self-monitoring group, P=.58 for the goal setting group, and P=.19 for the social comparison group). Fitbit-assessed step count during the intervention period was slightly higher in the goal setting and social comparison groups than in the self-monitoring group, although the effects did not reach statistical significance (P=.052 and P=.06). However, more than half (27/46, 59%) of the participants in the precontemplation stage reported progress to a higher stage across the 3 conditions. Additionally, significant increases were detected for several aspects of motivation (ie, integrated and external regulation), and significant group differences were identified for the day-to-day changes in external regulation; that is, the self-monitoring group showed a significantly larger increase in the sense of pressure and tension (as part of external regulation) than the goal setting group (P=.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Fitbit-implemented BCTs promote readiness and motivation for PA, although their effects on PA levels are marginal. The BCT-specific effects were unclear, but preliminary evidence showed that self-monitoring alone may be perceived demanding. Combining self-monitoring with another BCT (or goal setting, at least) may be important for enhancing continuous engagement in PA.
BACKGROUND: Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/87qnb/?view_only=f7b72d48bb5044eca4b8ce729f6b403b.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects of BCTs implemented on a smartwatch, the Fitbit, to determine how each technique promoted PA.
METHODS: This study was a single-blind, pilot randomized controlled trial, in which 70 adults (n=44, 63% women; mean age 40.5, SD 12.56 years; closed user group) were allocated to 1 of 3 BCT conditions: self-monitoring (feedback on participants\' own steps), goal setting (providing daily step goals), and social comparison (displaying daily steps achieved by peers). Each intervention lasted for 4 weeks (fully automated), during which participants wore a Fitbit and responded to day-to-day questionnaires regarding motivation. At pre- and postintervention time points (in-person sessions), levels and readiness for PA as well as different aspects of motivation were assessed.
RESULTS: Participants showed excellent adherence (mean valid-wear time of Fitbit=26.43/28 days, 94%), and no dropout was recorded. No significant changes were found in self-reported total PA (dz<0.28, P=.40 for the self-monitoring group, P=.58 for the goal setting group, and P=.19 for the social comparison group). Fitbit-assessed step count during the intervention period was slightly higher in the goal setting and social comparison groups than in the self-monitoring group, although the effects did not reach statistical significance (P=.052 and P=.06). However, more than half (27/46, 59%) of the participants in the precontemplation stage reported progress to a higher stage across the 3 conditions. Additionally, significant increases were detected for several aspects of motivation (ie, integrated and external regulation), and significant group differences were identified for the day-to-day changes in external regulation; that is, the self-monitoring group showed a significantly larger increase in the sense of pressure and tension (as part of external regulation) than the goal setting group (P=.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Fitbit-implemented BCTs promote readiness and motivation for PA, although their effects on PA levels are marginal. The BCT-specific effects were unclear, but preliminary evidence showed that self-monitoring alone may be perceived demanding. Combining self-monitoring with another BCT (or goal setting, at least) may be important for enhancing continuous engagement in PA.
BACKGROUND: Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/87qnb/?view_only=f7b72d48bb5044eca4b8ce729f6b403b.
摘要：
背景：可穿戴活动跟踪器已成为移动健康实践中的关键参与者，因为它们提供各种行为改变技术（BCT）来帮助改善身体活动（PA）。通常,在一个设备中同时实现多个BCT，这使得很难确定哪些BCT能特异性改善PA。
目的：我们研究了在智能手表上实施BCT的效果，Fitbit,以确定每种技术如何推广PA。
方法：这项研究是单盲的，先导随机对照试验，其中70名成年人（n=44，63％的女性；平均年龄40.5，SD12.56岁；封闭用户组）被分配到3个BCT条件中的1个：自我监测（对参与者自身步骤的反馈），目标设定(提供每日步骤目标)，和社会比较（显示同龄人实现的每日步骤）。每次干预持续4周（全自动），在此期间,参与者佩戴Fitbit并回答有关动机的日常问卷.在干预前和干预后的时间点(面对面会话)，评估了PA的水平和准备程度以及动机的不同方面。
结果：参与者表现出优异的依从性（Fitbit的平均有效佩戴时间=26.43/28天，94%），没有辍学的记录。自我报告的总PA无显著变化(自我监测组的dz<0.28,P=.40,目标设定组的P=.58，社会比较组的P=.19)。在干预期间，Fitbit评估的步数在目标设定和社会比较组中略高于自我监测组，虽然效果没有达到统计学意义(P=.052和P=.06)。然而,超过一半(27/46,59%)处于预想阶段的参与者报告在3种情况下进展到更高阶段.此外,在动机的几个方面检测到显著增加(即，综合和外部监管)，对于外部调节的日常变化，确定了显著的群体差异；也就是说，自我监测组的压力感和紧张感(作为外部调节的一部分)显著高于目标设定组(P=.04).
结论：Fitbit实施的BCT促进了PA的准备和动力，尽管它们对PA水平的影响很小。BCT特异性作用尚不清楚，但初步证据表明，自我监测本身可能被认为要求。将自我监测与另一个BCT(或目标设定，至少）对于增强PA的持续参与可能很重要。
背景：开放科学框架；https://osf.io/87qnb/?view_only=f7b72d48bb5044eca4b8ce729f6b403b。
目的：我们研究了在智能手表上实施BCT的效果，Fitbit,以确定每种技术如何推广PA。
方法：这项研究是单盲的，先导随机对照试验，其中70名成年人（n=44，63％的女性；平均年龄40.5，SD12.56岁；封闭用户组）被分配到3个BCT条件中的1个：自我监测（对参与者自身步骤的反馈），目标设定(提供每日步骤目标)，和社会比较（显示同龄人实现的每日步骤）。每次干预持续4周（全自动），在此期间,参与者佩戴Fitbit并回答有关动机的日常问卷.在干预前和干预后的时间点(面对面会话)，评估了PA的水平和准备程度以及动机的不同方面。
结果：参与者表现出优异的依从性（Fitbit的平均有效佩戴时间=26.43/28天，94%），没有辍学的记录。自我报告的总PA无显著变化(自我监测组的dz<0.28,P=.40,目标设定组的P=.58，社会比较组的P=.19)。在干预期间，Fitbit评估的步数在目标设定和社会比较组中略高于自我监测组，虽然效果没有达到统计学意义(P=.052和P=.06)。然而,超过一半(27/46,59%)处于预想阶段的参与者报告在3种情况下进展到更高阶段.此外,在动机的几个方面检测到显著增加(即，综合和外部监管)，对于外部调节的日常变化，确定了显著的群体差异；也就是说，自我监测组的压力感和紧张感(作为外部调节的一部分)显著高于目标设定组(P=.04).
结论：Fitbit实施的BCT促进了PA的准备和动力，尽管它们对PA水平的影响很小。BCT特异性作用尚不清楚，但初步证据表明，自我监测本身可能被认为要求。将自我监测与另一个BCT(或目标设定，至少）对于增强PA的持续参与可能很重要。
背景：开放科学框架；https://osf.io/87qnb/?view_only=f7b72d48bb5044eca4b8ce729f6b403b。
