Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41544066›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2026

A pilot effectiveness study of a just-in-time micro-randomized controlled trial on the physical activity and sedentary time of young children and their parents: The active family m-health intervention.

Sophie M Phillips, Matthew Bourke, Bayley V Inniss, Manvir Ahluwalia, Patricia Tucker

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

5 authors.

Sophie M PhillipsChild Health and Physical Activity Laboratory, School of Occupational Therapy, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4140-8013
Matthew BourkeChild Health and Physical Activity Laboratory, School of Occupational Therapy, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Bayley V InnissChild Health and Physical Activity Laboratory, School of Occupational Therapy, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6431-3599
Manvir AhluwaliaHealth and Rehabilitation Sciences Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Patricia TuckerChild Health and Physical Activity Laboratory, School of Occupational Therapy, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParents play a critical role in influencing their young children's physical activity (PA) and sedentary time (ST). Despite this, many young children (aged 3-4y) and their parents are insufficiently active and engage in high amounts of ST. M-health interventions targeting PA and ST have seldom been tested in this population. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness and acceptability of the Active Family m-health intervention on the PA and ST of young children and their parents.

methodsTwenty-five stay-at-home parent-child dyads from Canada took part in the 2-week just-in-time micro-randomized controlled trial. Parents received seven text message prompts per day, where they were randomized to receive either a micro-intervention (activity suggestion) or control (no suggestion). Parents and children wore ActiGraph accelerometers to measure ST, light [LPA], and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA]. Parents also completed a short online acceptability survey. A centred and weighted least square regression was used to analyze the effect of activity suggestions on the 60-min ST, LPA, and MVPA of parents and children following suggestion randomization. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyze acceptability survey responses.

resultsMicro-interventions were not effective at changing children's or parent's proximal ST (d = 0.01, p = .878; d = -0.09, p = .485, respectively), LPA (d = 0.03, p = .714; d = 0.03, p = .729, respectively), or MVPA (d = -0.05, p = .511; d = 0.10, p = .480, respectively). Interventions became more effective at increasing MVPA over time for parents (b = 0.47, 95%CI = 0.12, 0.83, p = .013). Among children, intervention effectiveness varied by contextual factors (e.g., weather). The intervention was largely acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for parents, though they did offer suggestions for improvement.

conclusionsOverall, micro-interventions did not significantly change parents or young children's proximal movement. Though, this approach showed promise for increasing parent's MVPA over time and for supporting children's activity under specific conditions.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth PromotionParentsSedentary BehaviorAccelerometryAdultCanadaChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMalePilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID41544066
PMCPMC12810825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.