A mobile healthy lifestyle intervention to promote mental health in adolescence: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: A healthy lifestyle may improve mental health. It is yet not known whether and how a mobile intervention can be of help in achieving this in adolescents. This study investigated the effectiveness and perceived underlying mechanisms of the mobile health (mHealth) intervention #LIFEGOALS to promote healthy lifestyles and mental health. #LIFEGOALS is an evidence-based app with activity tracker, including self-regulation techniques, gamification elements, a support chatbot, and health narrative videos. METHODS: A quasi-randomized controlled trial (N = 279) with 12-week intervention period and process evaluation interviews (n = 13) took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adolescents (12-15y) from the general population were allocated at school-level to the intervention (n = 184) or to a no-intervention group (n = 95). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), psychological well-being, mood, self-perception, peer support, resilience, depressed feelings, sleep quality and breakfast frequency were assessed via a web-based survey; physical activity, sedentary time, and sleep routine via Axivity accelerometers. Multilevel generalized linear models were fitted to investigate intervention effects and moderation by pandemic-related measures. Interviews were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Non-usage attrition was high: 18% of the participants in the intervention group never used the app. An additional 30% stopped usage by the second week. Beneficial intervention effects were found for physical activity (χ21 = 4.36, P = .04), sedentary behavior (χ21 = 6.44, P = .01), sleep quality (χ21 = 6.11, P = .01), and mood (χ21 = 2.30, P = .02). However, effects on activity-related behavior were only present for adolescents having normal sports access, and effects on mood only for adolescents with full in-school education. HRQoL (χ22 = 14.72, P < .001), mood (χ21 = 6.03, P = .01), and peer support (χ21 = 13.69, P < .001) worsened in adolescents with pandemic-induced remote-education. Interviewees reported that the reward system, self-regulation guidance, and increased health awareness had contributed to their behavior change. They also pointed to the importance of social factors, quality of technology and autonomy for mHealth effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: #LIFEGOALS showed mixed results on health behaviors and mental health. The findings highlight the role of contextual factors for mHealth promotion in adolescence, and provide suggestions to optimize support by a chatbot and narrative episodes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT04719858], registered on 22/01/2021.

Which behaviour change techniques are effective to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in adults: a factorial randomized trial of an e- and m-health intervention.

BACKGROUND: E- and m-health interventions are promising to change health behaviour. Many of these interventions use a large variety of behaviour change techniques (BCTs), but it's not known which BCTs or which combination of BCTs contribute to their efficacy. Therefore, this experimental study investigated the efficacy of three BCTs (i.e. action planning, coping planning and self-monitoring) and their combinations on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) against a background set of other BCTs. METHODS: In a 2 (action planning: present vs absent) × 2 (coping planning: present vs absent) × 2 (self-monitoring: present vs absent) factorial trial, 473 adults from the general population used the self-regulation based e- and m-health intervention 'MyPlan2.0' for five weeks. All combinations of BCTs were considered, resulting in eight groups. Participants selected their preferred target behaviour, either PA (n = 335, age = 35.8, 28.1% men) or SB (n = 138, age = 37.8, 37.7% men), and were then randomly allocated to the experimental groups. Levels of PA (MVPA in minutes/week) or SB (total sedentary time in hours/day) were assessed at baseline and post-intervention using self-reported questionnaires. Linear mixed-effect models were fitted to assess the impact of the different combinations of the BCTs on PA and SB. RESULTS: First, overall efficacy of each BCT was examined. The delivery of self-monitoring increased PA (t = 2.735, p = 0.007) and reduced SB (t = - 2.573, p = 0.012) compared with no delivery of self-monitoring. Also, the delivery of coping planning increased PA (t = 2.302, p = 0.022) compared with no delivery of coping planning. Second, we investigated to what extent adding BCTs increased efficacy. Using the combination of the three BCTs was most effective to increase PA (x2 = 8849, p = 0.003) whereas the combination of action planning and self-monitoring was most effective to decrease SB (x2 = 3.918, p = 0.048). To increase PA, action planning was always more effective in combination with coping planning (x2 = 5.590, p = 0.014; x2 = 17.722, p < 0.001; x2 = 4.552, p = 0.033) compared with using action planning without coping planning. Of note, the use of action planning alone reduced PA compared with using coping planning alone (x2 = 4.389, p = 0.031) and self-monitoring alone (x2 = 8.858, p = 003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides indications that different (combinations of) BCTs may be effective to promote PA and reduce SB. More experimental research to investigate the effectiveness of BCTs is needed, which can contribute to improved design and more effective e- and m-health interventions in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was preregistered as a clinical trial (ID number: NCT03274271 ). Release date: 20 October 2017.