| Literature DB >> 32755883 |
Michelle C Krzyzanowski1, Paul N Kizakevich1, Vanessa Duren-Winfield2, Randall Eckhoff1, Joel Hampton1, Loneke T Blackman Carr2,3, Georgia McCauley2, Kristina B Roberson2, Elijah O Onsomu2, John Williams2, Amanda Alise Price2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of mobile devices to access the internet and as the main computing system of apps, there is a growing market for mobile health apps to provide self-care advice. Their effectiveness with regard to diet and fitness tracking, for example, needs to be examined. The majority of American adults fail to meet daily recommendations for healthy behavior. Testing user engagement with an app in a controlled environment can provide insight into what is effective and not effective in an app focused on improving diet and exercise.Entities:
Keywords: cardiovascular disease; diary; diet; exercise; mHealth; mobile phone
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32755883 PMCID: PMC7439144 DOI: 10.2196/15156
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Home screen menu for the Rams Have Heart app (a) and screens for selecting (b) and setting (b) daily diary reminders.
Figure 2BMI data entry and calculator (a), along with sample screens (b, c) from the five-slide set of BMI educational materials.
Figure 3Example diary entry screens for daily tracking of fruit & vegetable consumption (a) and physical activity (b). Trend charts provide feedback on behavior goals over three weeks of recent entries (c).
Figure 4Users may catch up on missed diary entries for one or two days behind schedule (a). Labeling is changed to remind users that recall data are to be entered for specified day (b, c).
Figure 5Explanation of levels of activity effort to support quality diary entries.
Figure 6Explanation of fruit and vegetable serving size to support quality diary entries, along with educational materials supporting healthy eating choices and behaviors.
Demographic characteristics of participants (N=109).
| Demographicsa | Values, n (%) | |
|
| ||
|
| 17 | 8 (7.3) |
|
| 18 | 76 (69.7) |
|
| 19 | 13 (11.9) |
|
| 20 | 8 (7.3) |
|
| ≥21 | 4 (3.6) |
|
| ||
|
| Male | 26 (23.8) |
|
| Female | 83 (76.1) |
|
| ||
|
| Underweight (<18.5) | 3 (2.7) |
|
| Normal (18.5-24.9) | 56 (51.3) |
|
| Overweight (25.0-29.9) | 28 (25.6) |
|
| Obese (≥30.0) | 22 (20.1) |
aData represent cohort 2 and cohort 3 combined. Data were collected from separate questionnaires external to the mobile app.
Demographic characteristics of the intervention group (N=55).
| Demographicsa | Values, n (%) | ||
|
| |||
|
| 17 | 4 (7) | .51 |
|
| 18 | 37 (67) | .62 |
|
| 19 | 4 (7) | .84 |
|
| 20 | 7 (13) | .15 |
|
| ≥21 | 3 (5) | .31 |
|
|
| ||
|
| Male | 19 (35) | .08 |
|
| Female | 36 (65) | .92 |
|
|
| ||
|
| Underweight (<18.5) | 2 (4) | .38 |
|
| Normal (18.5-24.9) | 29 (53) | .43 |
|
| Overweight (25.0-29.9) | 16 (29) | .32 |
|
| Obese (≥30.0) | 8 (15) | .82 |
aData represent cohort 2 intervention and cohort 3 intervention combined. Data were collected from separate questionnaires external to the mobile app and are representative of the original pool of participants who provided diary data.
bP value refers to the significance of the difference between the entire population of cohorts and the intervention population (Table 1).
Viewership of information slides (N=52).
| Modulea | Values, n (%) | ||
|
| |||
|
| Watched before the first entry | 26 (50) | |
|
| Watched at least once | 37 (71) | |
|
| |||
|
| Watched before the first entry | 22 (42) | |
|
| Watched at least once | 34 (65) | |
aData were calculated based on participant ID and a true or false record of viewing the module in the dataset.
Figure 7The number of active participants recording diary entries over the course of the study (a) active participants providing activity diary entries and (b) active participants providing diary entries of fruit and vegetables. The study day of drop-off was determined by the latest date of data entry for each module.
Figure 8Average time participants took to enter a diary entry. Error bars represent Upper Confidence Level of the Mean (UCLM) and Lower Confidence Level of the Mean (LCLM). The average time was calculated by pooling all entries across all participants.
Figure 9Average time participants took to enter a diary entry after the actual diary date. Error bars represent UCLM and LCLM. The average time was calculated by pooling all entries across all participants.
Time of day data were recorded.
| Time point | Fruit and vegetable intake n (%)a, N=1968 | Activity n (%)a, N=1449 |
| Midnight to 1 AM | 114 (5.79) | 120 (8.28) |
| 1 AM to 2 AM | 83 (4.22) | 62 (4.28) |
| 2 AM to 3 AM | 120 (6.10) | 95 (6.56) |
| 3 AM to 4 AM | 81 (4.12) | 52 (3.59) |
| 4 AM to 5 AM | 66 (3.35) | 56 (3.86) |
| 5 AM to 6 AM | 55 (2.79) | 41 (2.83) |
| 6 AM to 7 AM | 19 (0.97) | 17 (1.17) |
| 7 AM to 8 AM | 20 (1.02) | 12 (0.83) |
| 8 AM to 9 AM | 5 (0.25) | 3 (0.21) |
| 9 AM to 10 AM | 0 (0.00) | 1 (0.07) |
| 10 AM to 11 AM | 1 (0.05) | 1 (0.07) |
| 11 AM to noon | 11 (0.56) | 10 (0.69) |
| Noon to 1 PM | 42 (2.13) | 30 (2.07) |
| 1 PM to 2 PM | 293 (14.89) | 165 (11.39) |
| 2 PM to 3 PM | 269 (13.67) | 208 (14.35) |
| 3 PM to 4 PM | 150 (7.62) | 88 (6.07) |
| 4 PM to 5 PM | 67 (3.40) | 58 (4.00) |
| 5 PM to 6 PM | 55 (2.79) | 35 (2.42) |
| 6 PM to 7 PM | 86 (4.37) | 60 (4.14) |
| 7 PM to 8 PM | 96 (4.88) | 79 (5.45) |
| 8 PM to 9 PM | 69 (3.51) | 56 (3.86) |
| 9 PM to 10 PM | 87 (4.42) | 61 (4.21) |
| 10 PM to 11 PM | 108 (5.49) | 81 (5.59) |
| 11 PM to midnight | 71 (3.61) | 58 (4.00) |
aPercentages indicate the proportion of entries recorded for the time period indicated. Data indicate all entries.
Time of night data were recorded.
| Time point | Fruit and vegetable intake (%)a (N=1024) | Activity (%)a (N=801) |
| Midnight to 1 AM | 43 (4.20) | 53 (6.62) |
| 1 AM to 2 AM | 39 (3.81) | 30 (3.75) |
| 2 AM to 3 AM | 42 (4.10) | 37 (4.62) |
| 3 AM to 4 AM | 41 (4.00) | 24 (3.00) |
| 4 AM to 5 AM | 38 (3.71) | 36 (4.49) |
| 5 AM to 6 AM | 35 (3.42) | 29 (3.62) |
| 6 AM to 7 AM | 14 (1.37) | 12 (1.50) |
| 7 AM to 8 AM | 13 (1.27) | 9 (1.12) |
| 8 AM to 9 AM | 3 (0.29) | 2 (0.25) |
| 9 AM to 10 AM | 0 (0.00) | 1 (0.12) |
| 10 AM to 11 AM | 1 (0.10) | 1 (0.12) |
| 11 AM to noon | 7 (0.68) | 6 (0.75) |
| Noon to 1 PM | 28 (2.73) | 21 (2.62) |
| 1 PM to 2 PM | 178 (17.38) | 111 (13.86) |
| 2 PM to 3 PM | 131 (12.79) | 103 (12.86) |
| 3 PM to 4 PM | 81 (7.91) | 58 (7.24) |
| 4 PM to 5 PM | 37 (2.61) | 30 (3.75) |
| 5 PM to 6 PM | 33 (3.22) | 22 (2.75) |
| 6 PM to 7 PM | 43 (4.20) | 33 (4.12) |
| 7 PM to 8 PM | 48 (4.69) | 44 (5.49) |
| 8 PM to 9 PM | 35 (3.42) | 32 (4.00) |
| 9 PM to 10 PM | 47 (4.59) | 35 (4.37) |
| 10 PM to 11 PM | 49 (4.79) | 43 (5.37) |
| 11 PM to midnight | 38 (3.71) | 29 (3.62) |
aPercentages indicate the proportion of entries recorded for the time period indicated. Data indicate only entries entered as recall data.
Figure 10Diary entry values recorded over the study period: (a) activity data (in minutes) over time; (b) activity data (in METS) over time; (c) fruit and vegetable servings over time. METS: metabolic estimates.
Figure 11Analysis of variance of diary entries grouped per study week: (a) activity data (in minutes) over time; (b) activity data (in METS) over time; (c) fruit and vegetable servings over time. METS: metabolic estimates.
Trend of fruit and vegetable and activity results over time.
| Study weeka | Fruit and vegetable | Activity (min) | Activity (metabolic equivalents) | |||
| 2 and 1 | 1.8089 | .03 | 13.074 | .94 | 12.06 | >.99 |
| 3 and 2 | −1.0330 | .97 | −9.476 | >.99 | −33.44 | >.99 |
| 4 and 3 | 0.1032 | >.99 | 6.675 | >.99 | 24.01 | >.99 |
| 5 and 4 | −0.8430 | >.99 | 0.188 | >.99 | 1.38 | >.99 |
| 6 and 5 | 1.2351 | .95 | −6.796 | >.99 | −24.25 | >.99 |
| 7 and 6 | 0.4428 | >.99 | 17.207 | .63 | 62.44 | .84 |
| 8 and 7 | 0.5558 | >.99 | −12.434 | .98 | −55.25 | .95 |
| 9 and 8 | −0.7438 | >.99 | 2.348 | >.99 | 10.20 | >.99 |
| 10 and 9 | 1.0697 | >.99 | 0.315 | >.99 | 4.21 | >.99 |
| 11 and 10 | 0.6354 | >.99 | −14.137 | >.99 | −48.68 | >.99 |
| 12 and 11 | −4.9688 | .98 | −39.324 | >.99 | −174.16 | >.99 |
| 13 and 12 | −0.5000 | >.99 | 15.000 | >.99 | 66.50 | >.99 |
| 14 and 13 | −1.0000 | >.99 | 17.500 | >.99 | 63.50 | >.99 |
| 15 and 14 | 5.0000 | >.99 | −14.375 | >.99 | −46.13 | >.99 |
| 16 and 15 | −1.3333 | >.99 | 11.875 | >.99 | 51.73 | >.99 |
| 17 and 16 | −0.0952 | >.99 | 6.818 | >.99 | 25.85 | >.99 |
| 18 and 17 | 4.4286 | .99 | 16.753 | >.99 | 75.12 | >.99 |
| 19 and 18 | −2.5000 | >.99 | −37.071 | >.99 | −148.47 | >.99 |
| 20 and 19 | 0.5000 | >.99 | 12.000 | >.99 | 61.00 | >.99 |
| 21 and 20 | −1.3000 | >.99 | −5.500 | >.99 | −25.90 | >.99 |
| 22 and 21 | 0.1333 | >.99 | −12.773 | >.99 | −59.25 | >.99 |
| 23 and 22 | 5.9667 | .50 | 3.523 | >.99 | 26.80 | >.99 |
| 24 and 23 | −7.3714 | .07 | 0.000 | >.99 | −13.00 | >.99 |
| 25 and 24 | 4.7381 | .80 | −0.893 | >.99 | 7.11 | >.99 |
| 26 and 25 | −2.6667 | >.99 | −2.545 | >.99 | −16.79 | >.99 |
| 27 and 26 | —b | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 and 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 and 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 and 29 | −1.6500 | >.99 | −115.217 | >.99 | −26.40 | >.99 |
| 31 and 30 | 0.4000 | >.99 | −5.000 | >.99 | −33.00 | >.99 |
| 31 and 1 | 4.7624 | >.99 | −42.361 | >.99 | −221.49 | >.99 |
aNumbers represent the difference between means calculated using ANOVA with the Tukey studentized range (honestly significant difference) test, pooling data from cohort 2 and cohort 3.
bData not available.