Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile Health Exercise Intervention for Inactive Adults: 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial (Preprint)
Authors: Dawson Jacqueline Kiwata , Ede Alison , Phan Madeleine , Sequeira Alec , Teng Hsiang-Ling , Donlin Ayla 
Published: August 2024

BACKGROUND

Objective monitoring of self-directed physical activity (PA) is a common approach used in both fitness and health settings to promote exercise behavior, but adherence has been poor. Newer mobile health (mHealth) technologies could be a cost-effective approach to broadening accessibility and providing support for PA behavior change; yet, the optimal method of delivery of such interventions is still unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of an mHealth exercise intervention delivered in combination with objective monitoring in 3 ways: health education emails, asynchronous exercise videos, or synchronous videoconference exercise classes.

METHODS

Physically inactive (&lt;30 min/wk) adults (cisgender women aged 31.5, SD 11.3 years, cisgender men aged 34.1, SD 28.9 years, and nonbinary individuals aged 22.0, SD 0 years) were randomized (1:1:1) to 8 weeks of increasing PA behavioral support: level 1 (health education+objective monitoring, n=26), level 2 (asynchronous contact, level 1+prerecorded exercise videos, n=30), or level 3 (synchronous contact, level 1+videoconference group exercise, n=28). Participants used a heart rate monitor during exercise and a mobile app for interaction. Primary outcomes were feasibility (accrual, retention, and adherence) and acceptability (user experience survey). Secondary outcomes assessed at baseline and 8 weeks included resting heart rate, self-reported PA, and quality of life. The exercise dose was evaluated throughout the intervention.

RESULTS

Between August 2020 and August 2021, 204 adults were screened for eligibility. Out of 135 eligible participants, 84 (62%) enrolled in the study. Retention was 50% (13/26) in level 1, 60% (18/30) in level 2 and 82% (23/28) in level 3, while adherence was 31% (8/26) in level 1, 40% (12/30) in level 2 and 75% (21/28) in level 3. A total of 83% (70/84) of the study sample completed the intervention, but low response rates (64%, 54/84) were observed postintervention at week-8 assessments. Program satisfaction was highest in participants receiving exercise videos (level 2, 80%, 8/10) or exercise classes (level 3, 80%, 12/15), while only 63% (5/8) of level 1 reported the program as enjoyable. Level 3 was most likely to recommend the program (87%, 13/15), compared to 80% (8/10) in level 2 and 46% (5/8) in level 1. Self-reported PA significantly increased from baseline to intervention in level 3 (<i>P</i>&lt;.001) and level 2 (<i>P</i>=.003), with no change in level 1. Level 3 appeared to exercise at higher doses throughout the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Only the videoconference exercise class intervention met feasibility criteria, although postintervention response rates were low across all groups. Both videoconference and prerecorded videos had good acceptability, while objective monitoring and health education alone were not feasible or acceptable. Future studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of videoconference exercise interventions on health-related outcomes during nonpandemic times and how asynchronous interventions might maximize adherence.

CLINICALTRIAL

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05192421; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05192421