Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41707195›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026

Effectiveness of Step Goal Personalization Strategies on Physical Activity in a Mobile Health App: A Field Study.

Xia Liu, Tammo H A Bijmolt, Marijke C Leliveld, Ernst H Noppers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Xia LiuDepartment of Marketing, Faculty of Business Administration, Hebei University of Economics and Business, Xuefu Road 47, Shijiazhuang, 050061, China, 86 187 3316 3263.ORCID 0000-0002-5522-1746
Tammo H A BijmoltDepartment of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4941-5998
Marijke C LeliveldDepartment of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4455-5668
Ernst H NoppersMenzis, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0002-6466-903X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Goal personalization features integrated into mobile health apps have the potential to enhance physical activity, as some evidence shows that the personalized goals generated by algorithms are more effective than default or fixed goals. However, it remains unclear whether goals set by users are more effective than fixed goals and which personalization strategy is more effective for different user segments. Objective: This field study aimed to evaluate (1) the efficacy of 2 step goal personalization strategies-personalized-by-you and personalized-by-the-algorithm-and (2) which strategy is more effective among users with different activity levels. Methods: All users of SamenGezond, a Dutch mobile health app, have a default goal of 2000 steps per day, 5 days a week. For this study, 2 random groups were selected, totaling 5800 users. Subsequently, an email was sent to 3800 users in group 1, asking whether they were satisfied with their current goal. Those who were not satisfied were offered 2 personalization options: to set a goal themselves or to have the algorithm integrated in the app set goals for them. In total, 1399 users responded: 230 chose to set their own goals (personalized-by-you group), 236 opted for setting the goal by the algorithm (personalized-by-the-algorithm group), and 933 chose to keep the default goal (not-changed group). The algorithm used a moving-window percentile rank method based on step data from the previous 4 weeks. Users who did not personalize retained the default goal. The remaining 2000 users in group 2 did not receive the email and also retained the default goal. To evaluate the effectiveness of step goal personalization strategies, we used propensity score matching and difference-in-difference analysis. Results: Users in the personalized-by-you group increased weekly step count by 3793 a week, while those in the personalized-by-the-algorithm group increased by 4315 steps a week, compared with the not-changed group (users with default goals). The 2 strategies appear to have a similar effect. Interestingly, users in the not-changed group also increased their weekly steps by 1759. Furthermore, the effectiveness of each strategy varied by baseline activity level. The personalized-by-you strategy was effective for medium- (increase of 5842 steps) and high-active users (increase of 4266 steps) but not for low-active users (increase of 384 steps; P=.82). Conversely, the personalized-by-the-algorithm strategy was effective for low- (increase of 5095 steps) and medium-active users (increase of 5278 steps) but not for high-active users (increase of 1446 steps; P=.51). Conclusions: Step goal personalization demonstrates short-term effectiveness. However, their impact varies by users' baseline activity levels, indicating the need for a tailored approach for different user segments. Future studies should examine the long-term effects of such interventions to design sustainable health behavior change strategies.

Indexed as

ExerciseGoalsMobile ApplicationsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSurveys and Questionnairesdifference-in-differencegoal managementgoal personalizationmobile health appphysical activitypropensity score matching

Identifiers

PMID41707195
PMCPMC12916092

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.