Sunmoo Yoon1, Joseph E Schwartz2, Matthew M Burg3, Ian M Kronish4, Carmela Alcantara5, Jacob Julian4, Faith Parsons4, Karina W Davidson4, Keith M Diaz4. 1. School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, New York. Electronic address: sy2102@columbia.edu. 2. Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York. 3. Departments of Internal Medicine and Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 5. Columbia School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This intervention study used mobile technologies to investigate whether those randomized to receive a personalized "activity fingerprint" (i.e., a one-time tailored message about personal predictors of exercise developed from 6 months of observational data) increased their physical activity levels relative to those not receiving the fingerprint. STUDY DESIGN: A 12-month randomized intervention study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: From 2014 to 2015, 79 intermittent exercisers had their daily physical activity assessed by accelerometry (Fitbit Flex) and daily stress experience, a potential predictor of exercise behavior, was assessed by smartphone. INTERVENTION: Data collected during the first 6 months of observation were used to develop a person-specific "activity fingerprint" (i.e., N-of-1) that was subsequently sent via email on a single occasion to randomized participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre-post changes in the percentage of days exercised were analyzed within and between control and intervention groups. RESULTS: The control group significantly decreased their proportion of days exercised (10.5% decrease, p<0.0001) following randomization. By contrast, the intervention group showed a nonsignificant decrease in the proportion of days exercised (4.0% decrease, p=0.14). Relative to the decrease observed in the control group, receipt of the activity fingerprint significantly increased the likelihood of exercising in the intervention group (6.5%, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This N-of-1 intervention study demonstrates that a one-time brief message conveying personalized exercise predictors had a beneficial effect on exercise behavior among urban adults.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This intervention study used mobile technologies to investigate whether those randomized to receive a personalized "activity fingerprint" (i.e., a one-time tailored message about personal predictors of exercise developed from 6 months of observational data) increased their physical activity levels relative to those not receiving the fingerprint. STUDY DESIGN: A 12-month randomized intervention study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: From 2014 to 2015, 79 intermittent exercisers had their daily physical activity assessed by accelerometry (Fitbit Flex) and daily stress experience, a potential predictor of exercise behavior, was assessed by smartphone. INTERVENTION: Data collected during the first 6 months of observation were used to develop a person-specific "activity fingerprint" (i.e., N-of-1) that was subsequently sent via email on a single occasion to randomized participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre-post changes in the percentage of days exercised were analyzed within and between control and intervention groups. RESULTS: The control group significantly decreased their proportion of days exercised (10.5% decrease, p<0.0001) following randomization. By contrast, the intervention group showed a nonsignificant decrease in the proportion of days exercised (4.0% decrease, p=0.14). Relative to the decrease observed in the control group, receipt of the activity fingerprint significantly increased the likelihood of exercising in the intervention group (6.5%, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This N-of-1 intervention study demonstrates that a one-time brief message conveying personalized exercise predictors had a beneficial effect on exercise behavior among urban adults.
Authors: P Darrell Neufer; Marcas M Bamman; Deborah M Muoio; Claude Bouchard; Dan M Cooper; Bret H Goodpaster; Frank W Booth; Wendy M Kohrt; Robert E Gerszten; Mark P Mattson; Russell T Hepple; William E Kraus; Michael B Reid; Sue C Bodine; John M Jakicic; Jerome L Fleg; John P Williams; Lyndon Joseph; Mary Evans; Padma Maruvada; Mary Rodgers; Mary Roary; Amanda T Boyce; Jonelle K Drugan; James I Koenig; Richard H Ingraham; Danuta Krotoski; Mary Garcia-Cazarin; Joan A McGowan; Maren R Laughlin Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Tina Louisa Cook; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Lea Maes; Leen Haerens; Evangelia Grammatikaki; Kurt Widhalm; Lydia Kwak; Maria Plada; Luis Alberto Moreno; Yannis Tountas; Antonis Zampelas; Yannis Manios Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2013-05-10
Authors: J F Sallis; W L Haskell; P D Wood; S P Fortmann; T Rogers; S N Blair; R S Paffenbarger Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1985-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jet J C S Veldhuijzen van Zanten; Peter C Rouse; Elizabeth D Hale; Nikos Ntoumanis; George S Metsios; Joan L Duda; George D Kitas Journal: Sports Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Britta Larsen; Todd Gilmer; Dori Pekmezi; Melissa A Napolitano; Bess H Marcus Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 6.457