An mHealth Physical Activity Intervention for Latina Adolescents: Iterative Design of the Chicas Fuertes Study

Designing Health Interventions to Meet the Needs and Experiences of Minoritized Adolescents: #DoubleTap4Health

Engagement in preventive health behaviors (PHBs; i.e., healthy eating, sleep, and physical activity) during adolescence is associated with reduced risks for chronic conditions, such as diabetes, in adulthood. Although several interventions seek to improve adolescents' engagement in health promoting behaviors, racial- and income-based disparities across PHBs persist and may be even more pronounced for adolescents with multiple minoritized identities (e.g., Black adolescents in low-income communities). Therefore, targeted interventions that better meet the needs of minoritized adolescents are critical. The design of such interventions should include: (1) adolescent involvement, (2) cultural tailoring, (3) developmental theory, and (4) consideration of the social determinants of health. This article describes how these elements have been successfully incorporated into adolescent preventive health interventions and used to design #DoubleTap4Health, a community-based social media health intervention for Black adolescents from a low-income community. The results of a feasibility pilot of #DoubleTap4Health suggest that (1) attention to these elements in the intervention design process is feasible and advantageous to ensuring that the intervention components are appropriate and well received by adolescents, and (2) the intervention demonstrated promise as adolescents showed improved engagement in PHBs and media literacy skills. Lessons learned and next steps for intervention development are discussed. Including the above four elements in the design of preventive health interventions for adolescents from minoritized communities is critical to promoting health equity.

Communicating physical activity messages with adolescents: what works? A scoping review with stakeholder consultation

BACKGROUND

Global levels of adolescents' physical inactivity are cause for concern, despite the well-documented health benefits of physical activity (PA). Addressing the messaging of PA is one approach to improve PA knowledge. While increased knowledge does not necessarily lead to behavior change, physically active students have better knowledge of the health benefits of PA. Recently, researchers have highlighted the need for an effective communication strategy for PA messages. This review aimed to summarize the state of the available evidence about the operationalization of communicating PA messages, the evaluation, and effectiveness of PA messages.

METHODS

The Levac six steps and Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for scoping reviews were followed. Five databases were searched up until April 8th 2024. Both title and abstract and full-text screening were piloted whereby 10% of the total articles were double-screened and the remainder were completed by CG. Data were extracted and a data-based convergent synthesis design was used following qualitative synthesis methods. Finally, a consultation with key stakeholders was held to confirm the findings concerning practical relevance.

RESULTS

A total of 19,412 articles were identified from searches, 94 full texts were included in the final analysis, corresponding to 80 individual studies. The evidence confirms that there are many factors to consider when communicating PA messages and evaluating their effectiveness. Inconsistencies exist regarding the timing and frequency of message delivery and the evaluation of effective communication. When communicating PA with adolescents, messages commonly focus on the benefits of PA and strategies to overcome barriers and are commonly delivered in the school setting by researchers or school stakeholders i.e. teachers, peers. Messages should be concise, positively framed, support adolescent autonomy, and utilize different messaging platforms and techniques to avoid staleness.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of a standardized approach to communicating PA messages with adolescents making evaluation and comparison challenging. Future research should focus on developing guidance to facilitate the effective communication of PA messages with adolescents.

Randomized controlled trial of a multiple technology-based physical activity intervention for Latina adolescents: Recruitment strategies and baseline data from the Chicas Fuertes trial

BACKGROUND

Latina adolescents report low levels of physical activity (PA) and high lifetime risk of lifestyle-related diseases. They also have high rates of using technology, suggesting interventions delivered through mobile devices may be effective for this population. The current paper describes recruitment methods and baseline study characteristics for Chicas Fuertes, a fully powered randomized trial of a mobile technology PA intervention.

METHODS

Underactive Latina adolescents (aged 13-18) were recruited using social media and presentations at local schools and community organizations in San Diego, California. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either the intervention (Fitbit, tailored texting, social media, and website) or control group. Baseline measures included demographics, psychosocial variables, and PA measured by the 7-Day Physical Activity Recall (PAR), ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers, and Fitbits. Baseline data were collected from 2020 to 2023.

RESULTS

Social media yielded the most contacts (465), but had the lowest chance of enrollment (14 %, vs. 52 % from school presentations). Participants (N = 160) were mostly second generation (68.8 %), and low income (61.8 %), but technology access was high (>99 %). Median self-reported moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) using the 7-Day PAR was 120 min/week (range 0-720), and median daily steps were 5222 (IQR 359). Median MVPA measured by ActiGraphs, however, was 0 min per week. There was no correlation between the 7-day PAR and ActiGraphs (ρ=.13,p=.12). However, ActiGraph MVPA was correlated with total steps recorded by the Fitbit (ρ=.38,p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both remote and in-person approaches were successful in recruiting a sample that was underactive and low income, but had high technology use.

How to design equitable digital health tools: A narrative review of design tactics, case studies, and opportunities

With a renewed focus on health equity in the United States driven by national crises and legislation to improve digital healthcare innovation, there is a need for the designers of digital health tools to take deliberate steps to design for equity in their work. A concrete toolkit of methods to design for health equity is needed to support digital health practitioners in this aim. This narrative review summarizes several health equity frameworks to help digital health practitioners conceptualize the equity dimensions of importance for their work, and then provides design approaches that accommodate an equity focus. Specifically, the Double Diamond Model, the IDEAS framework and toolkit, and community collaboration techniques such as participatory design are explored as mechanisms for practitioners to solicit input from members of underserved groups and better design digital health tools that serve their needs. Each of these design methods requires a deliberate effort by practitioners to infuse health equity into the approach. A series of case studies that use different methods to build in equity considerations are offered to provide examples of how this can be accomplished and demonstrate the range of applications available depending on resources, budget, product maturity, and other factors. We conclude with a call for shared rigor around designing digital health tools that deliver equitable outcomes for members of underserved populations.

A multiple technology-based and individually-tailored Sit Less program for people with cardiovascular disease: A randomized controlled trial study protocol

Sedentary behavior, a key modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is prevalent among cardiovascular disease patients. However, few interventions target sedentary behavior in this group. This paper describes the protocol of a parallel two-group randomized controlled trial for a novel multi-technology sedentary behavior reduction intervention for cardiovascular disease patients (registered at Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT05534256). The pilot trial (n = 70) will test a 12-week "Sit Less" program, based on Habit Formation theory. The 35 participants in the intervention group will receive an instructional goal-setting session, a Fitbit for movement prompts, a smart water bottle (HidrateSpark) to promote hydration and encourage restroom breaks, and weekly personalized text messages. A control group of 35 will receive the American Heart Association's "Answers by Heart" fact sheets. This trial will assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the "Sit Less" program with cardiovascular disease patients and the program's primary efficacy in changing sedentary behavior, measured by the activPAL activity tracker. Secondary outcomes include physical activity levels, cardiometabolic biomarkers, and patient-centered outcomes (i.e. sedentary behavior self-efficacy, habit strength, and fear of movement). This study leverages commonly used mobile and wearable technologies to address sedentary behavior in cardiovascular disease patients, a high-risk group. Its findings on the feasibility, acceptability and primary efficacy of the intervention hold promise for broad dissemination.

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

A multiple technology-based physical activity intervention for Latina adolescents in the USA: randomized controlled trial study protocol for Chicas Fuertes

Background

Latina adolescents in the USA report some of the lowest rates of physical activity of any demographic subgroup; this is paralleled by a markedly higher lifetime risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other conditions related to inactivity. Despite this, to date, no fully powered clinical trials have tested physical activity interventions specifically for this population. High use of mobile technologies (including text messages, smartphone apps, and social media) suggests this could be an appropriate intervention channel, while also having potential for broad reach. This paper describes the protocol for Chicas Fuertes, a fully powered randomized trial of a mobile technology-based physical activity intervention for Latina adolescents.

Methods

We plan to recruit 200 Latina teens (age 13–18) in San Diego, CA, currently engaging in ≤ 150 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) to be assigned 1:1 to the intervention or control groups. Those randomly assigned to the intervention group receive a one-on-one goal setting session followed by 6 months of mobile technology-based intervention, including a personalized website, Fitbit activity tracker and app, individually tailored text messages based on Fitbit data, and daily intervention content on Instagram. Those randomized to the control group receive only a Fitbit activity tracker. The main outcome is change in weekly minutes of MVPA from baseline to 6 months, measured both objectively (ActiGraph accelerometers and Fitbit Inspire HR) and subjectively (7-Day Physical Activity Recall Interview). Additional outcomes are maintenance of activity change at 12 months and changes in psychosocial constructs, including social support and self-efficacy, engagement with mobile technology channels, and costs of intervention delivery. We are also examining the potential mediators and moderators of the intervention. The efficacy of the intervention is analyzed using a mixed effects regression model, adjusting for any potential confounders not balanced by randomization. All analyses of accelerometer measured MVPA are also adjusted for wear time.

Discussion

The Chicas Fuertes trial uses widely available mobile technologies to target critical health behavior, physical activity, in Latina teens, a population with a high lifetime risk of lifestyle-related diseases. The results will speak to the efficacy and acceptability of the intervention, which has the potential for broad dissemination.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04190225. Registered on November 20, 2019