Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34855609›Full record

Trial reportJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Walking and Daily Affect Among Sedentary Older Adults Measured Using the StepMATE App: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Alycia N Bisson, Victoria Sorrentino, Margie E Lachman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03124537 (Increasing Physical Activity Among Sedentary Older Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03124537 nacompletednot on this map

Increasing Physical Activity Among Sedentary Older Adults:What, Where, When, and With Whom

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrandeis UniversityRan2017 to 2019Enrolled86ConditionsSedentary Lifestyle, Self Efficacy, Control Locus, AgingArmsApp Experimental condition, App Condition Control
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alycia N BissonPsychology Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3620-6601
Victoria SorrentinoPsychology Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7967-6040
Margie E LachmanPsychology Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3027-8735

Funding

Core B - Pilot StudiesP30AG048785 · NIA · BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY · PI LACHMAN, MARGIE E · 2014 to 2023
$4.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG048785
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough fitness technology can track and encourage increases in physical activity, few smartphone apps are based on behavior change theories. Apps that do include behavioral components tend to be costly and often do not include strategies to help those who are unsure of how to increase their physical activity.

objectiveThe aim of this pilot study is to test the efficacy of a new app, StepMATE, for increasing daily walking in a sample of inactive adults and to examine daily relationships between walking and self-reported mood and energy.

methodsThe participants were middle-aged and older adults aged ≥50 years (mean 61.64, SD 7.67 years). They were randomly assigned to receive either a basic, pedometer-like version of the app or a version with supports to help them determine where, when, and with whom to walk. Of the 96 participants randomized to 1 of 2 conditions, 87 (91%) completed pretest assessments and 81 (84%) successfully downloaded the app. Upon downloading the app, step data from the week prior were automatically recorded. The participants in both groups were asked to set a daily walking goal, which they could change at any point during the intervention. They were asked to use the app as much as possible over the next 4 weeks. Twice per day, pop-up notifications assessed mood and energy levels.

resultsAlthough one group had access to additional app features, both groups used the app in a similar way, mainly using just the walk-tracking feature. Multilevel models revealed that both groups took significantly more steps during the 4-week study than during the week before downloading the app (γ=0.24; P<.001). During the study, the participants in both groups averaged 5248 steps per day compared with an average of 3753 steps per day during the baseline week. Contrary to predictions, there were no differences in step increases between the two conditions. Cognition significantly improved from pre- to posttest (γ=0.17; P=.02). Across conditions, on days in which the participants took more steps than average, they reported better mood and higher energy levels on the same day and better mood on the subsequent day. Daily associations among walking, mood, and energy were significant for women but not for men and were stronger for older participants (those aged ≥62 years) than for the younger participants.

conclusionsBoth groups increased their steps to a similar extent, suggesting that setting and monitoring daily walking goals was sufficient for an initial increase and maintenance of steps. Across conditions, walking had benefits for positive mood and energy levels, particularly for women and older participants. Further investigations should identify other motivating factors that could lead to greater and more sustained increases in physical activity.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03124537; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03124537.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAgedExerciseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationPilot ProjectsWalkingagingbehavioral sciencefitness technologyinterventionmobile phonephysical activity

Identifiers

PMID34855609
PMCPMC8686479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.