Skip to main content
Download PDF

A social media game to increase physical activity among older adult women: protocol of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate CHALLENGE

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 2172 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Older adult women often do not engage in sufficient physical activity (PA) and can encounter biological changes that exacerbate the negative effects of inadequate activity. Wearable activity monitors can facilitate PA initiation, but evidence of sustained behavior change is lacking. Supplementing wearable technologies with intervention content that evokes enjoyment, interest, meaning, and personal values associated with PA may support long term adherence. In this paper, we present the protocol of an NIA-funded study designed to evaluate the efficacy of CHALLENGE for increasing step count and motivation for PA in insufficiently active older women (Challenges for Healthy Aging: Leveraging Limits for Engaging Networked Game-based Exercise). CHALLENGE uses social media to supplement wearable activity monitors with the autonomy-supportive frame of a game. We hypothesize that CHALLENGE will engender playful experiences that will improve motivation for exercise and lead to sustained increases in step count.

Methods

We will recruit 300 healthy, community dwelling older adult women on a rolling basis and randomize them to receive either the CHALLENGE intervention (experimental arm) or an activity monitor-only intervention (comparison arm). Participants in both groups will receive a wearable activity monitor and personalized weekly feedback emails. In the experimental group, participants will also be added to a private Facebook group, where study staff will post weekly challenges that are designed to elicit playful experiences while walking. Assessments at baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months will measure PA and motivation-related constructs. We will fit linear mixed-effects models to evaluate differences in step count and motivational constructs, and longitudinal mediation models to evaluate if interventional effects are mediated by changes in motivation. We will also conduct thematic content analysis of text and photos posted to Facebook and transcripts from individual interviews.

Discussion

By taking part in a year-long intervention centered on imbuing walking behaviors with playful and celebratory experiences, participating older adult women may internalize changes to their identity and relationship with PA that facilitate sustained behavior change. Study results will have implications for how we can harness powerful and increasingly ubiquitous technologies for health promotion to the vast and growing population of older adults in the U.S. and abroad.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04095923. Registered September 17th, 2019.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Sustained moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (PA) is beneficial for older adults. PA improves physical functioning [1, 2], mental and physical health [3,4,5,6,7], and quality of life for this population [8]. Unfortunately, most older adults do not engage in sufficient PA [9] and their rates of PA tend to decline with age [10]. Among adults aged 65–79, activity levels decrease approximately 2% per year, compounding [11]. Women generally accumulate less PA than men [12,13,14,15]. Women also face decreased muscle quality and lean mass after menopause [16], which can exacerbate inadequate activity’s negative effects [17]. Though current interventions can produce PA initiation in older adult women [18], evidence for long-term adherence has been disappointing [19, 20]. More sustainable and scalable interventions are needed to enhance PA for older women who are not meeting recommended PA guidelines [21].

Walking has emerged as a primary target for PA promotion to older adults. It is the most commonly performed type of PA [22] and is accessible, simple, and enjoyable [23, 24]. Even adjusted for other types of PA, walking is associated with decreased mortality among older adults [25]. mHealth media, such as applications on smart devices and wearable activity monitors, have shown promise as scalable methods for delivering walking interventions [26, 27]. These media are acceptable among older adults [28, 29], and pilot studies in this age group have demonstrated short-term step count increases [30,31,32,33]. Unfortunately, use of activity monitors has not been associated with long-term PA adherence in this demographic group [34, 35]. A review found only two technology-based intervention studies of older adults with follow-ups of 6 months or greater, and neither found a significant result at follow-up [36].

It may be that the messaging and framing paradigms assumed by most activity monitor systems are not a good fit for promoting sustained PA in older women. One commonly employed perspective in mHealth media, termed the corrective technology perspective, emphasizes the potential utility of applying technology to highlight objective discrepancies between the user’s intentions and subsequent performance [37, 38]. Another common perspective, the quantified self perspective, is centered on stimulating personal insight via the presentation of detailed, objectively measured data [37, 38]. An important limitation of these perspectives is that they do not typically involve higher order factors, such as personal meaning, values, experiential outcomes, or subjective interpretations of their data [37, 38]. Perhaps due to this missing contextual relevance, the use of digital technologies alone appears to rarely translate to sustained behavior change in older adults [39].

Adopting a celebratory technology framework may be advantageous for promoting sustained PA in older women. While corrective technology focuses on “fixing” a behavior, celebratory technology focuses on positive aspects of beliefs, actions, and values related to the behavior [40]. This framework attempts to imbue personal informatics with a sense of reflection [41], context [42], and storytelling [43], or, evoke the qualified self more so than the quantified self. Orienting PA promotion in this way is concordant with Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which posits that autonomous regulations are powerful predictors of behavior over time (i.e., motivations for PA born of inherent interest, identity, or valuing outcomes) [44]. A growing literature supports the utility that SDT provides for understanding and influencing PA behaviors [45,46,47,48,49,50]. Thus, enriching digital PA technologies with a celebratory technology perspective that emphasizes enjoyment, interest, meaning, and personal values may be a useful approach to supporting adherence to health-related behaviors.

Active games are one potential method for achieving a celebratory technology perspective and targeting autonomous regulations for PA. Games and play have long been linked to SDT constructs [51,52,53]. Seminal definitions of games have explicitly stated that games are intrinsically motivating, and further that they are often characterized by the imposition of arbitrary constraints and limitations along the path to goal achievement [54,55,56]. Indeed, popular games can greatly increase perceptions of autonomy and autonomous regulation in the context of PA [51, 53, 57,58,59]. Active games created to target SDT constructs have increased autonomous regulation [51], as have active games in which PA is incidental [59].

In line with this literature, we engaged in human-centered design that theory-based program planning to develop CHALLENGE (Challenges for Healthy Aging: Leveraging Limits for Engaging Networked Game-based Exercise) [60, 61], a PA intervention that aims to supplement the corrective technology of wearable activity monitors and apps with celebratory intervention components that use the autonomy-supportive frame of a game. The focus of the intervention is to facilitate, augment, and emphasize positive aspects of walking for PA among older adult women, rather than focusing on “correcting” insufficient PA [40]. CHALLENGE was designed to use arbitrary rules to invoke game mechanics and produce playful experiences that increase autonomous regulations for PA [61].

In this paper, we present the protocol of an NIA-funded R01 study designed to evaluate the efficacy of CHALLENGE (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04095923; NIH Grant R01AG064092; UTMB IRB #19–0158). We hypothesize that older women who play the game (i.e., engage in the experimental CHALLENGE intervention) will exhibit increases in autonomous regulations for PA at the intervention end (12 months) and after a 6-month no intervention maintenance period (18 months). We further hypothesize that participants who experience the intervention will exhibit increases in walking (measured in steps) at these time points. We will also investigate potential mechanisms of the intervention effects; specifically, we will conduct longitudinal mediation analysis for outcomes (number of steps) measured at months 12 and 18 by autonomous regulation (or other regulation) measured at month 6. For exploratory purposes, we will investigate the potentially moderating effects of age, trait playfulness, and physical functioning on engagement and step count.

Methods

Design

The goals of the CHALLENGE study are two-fold: first, to test the efficacy of a novel intervention that uses game elements to reframe traditional mHealth intervention components; and second, to investigate potential mechanisms by which the intervention may improve PA. To pursue these aims, we will conduct a two-group randomized controlled trial. We hypothesize that the elements of game design in CHALLENGE will lead to celebratory and playful experiences that will improve SDT constructs linked to exercise and subsequently lead to sustained increases in walking (Fig. 1).

We will recruit healthy older women and randomize them into the game-based intervention group or to an activity monitor-only comparison group. This comparison will ensure that differences between conditions are due to the game content. Participants in both groups will receive a wearable activity monitor; the companion feedback app for those monitors will be downloaded to participants’ mobile devices. In the game intervention group, participants will also be added to a private Facebook group, where interventionists will post weekly challenges that require PA but have arbitrary, autonomous goals (see intervention description, below). Assessments at baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months will measure steps and psychosocial/motivational self-report variables. Throughout the study we will also collect process variables such as wear of the monitor and posts to the social media group. The primary outcome will be change in steps, which we will investigate at the intervention end (12 months) and after a 6-month maintenance period with no intervention (18 months).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual model of CHALLENGE

Full size image

Participants and recruitment

We will recruit 300 community dwelling older women in the U.S. on a rolling basis with the assistance of the recruitment core of the UTMB Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center. Participants will be recruited using online recruitment using UTMB’s newsletters, presentations at local wellness events, and targeted Facebook advertisements. To help accomplish the latter, we will employ the services of Trialfacts (San Diego, CA), which uses digital means (e.g., Facebook advertisements) to provide targeted patient recruitment services. We anticipate recruitment and randomization to continue for approximately 3 years.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria include age 65–85, self-report as women, ability to read and write in English, the availability of a mobile device using either iOS or Android software with a working camera, willingness to use a private Facebook group, sufficient internet access to post photos to Facebook at least once per week, and having an existing Facebook account or the willingness to create one.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria include being unable to walk for exercise (self-report), walking less than 475 m in a 6-minute walk test during baseline assessment, having had stroke, hip fracture, hip or knee replacement, or spinal surgery in the past 6 months, answering “yes” to any question on the PAR-Q + without providing a doctor’s note giving permission to begin a PA program, self-reporting weekly PA ≥ 150 min, having a BMI under 18 or over 40, reporting psychological issues that would interfere with study completion, planning to move away from the Galveston-Houston area, clinical judgment concerning safety, currently participating in an organized commercial or research PA program, and another member of the household being a participant or staff member on this trial.

Sample size and statistical power

Because effect size estimates taken directly from pilot studies can produce biased power estimates when used alone [62, 63] and our pilot trials could not provide the range of outcomes needed (e.g., steps at 6, 12, and 18 months), we used several sources to estimate the range of possible intervention effects. We estimated steps per day increases of approximately 1500, 1000, and 500 at the three follow-up points. These numbers were based on similar mHealth walking studies [36], preliminary research [32], and the clinical significance of 500-step-per-day increase for older adults [64,65,66]. To achieve 80% power, a sample size of approximately 252 participants would be needed to detect this difference between groups at 18 months. Our most conservative estimates would require a sample size of 275. We will recruit 300 participants in case of any missing data that cannot be dealt with via imputation (e.g., extreme levels of missingness, or if there is reason to believe that data are missing not at random).

Assuming at least 275 participants, we will have 99% power to detect that the intervention increases autonomous regulation by 0.6 units, as measured by the BREQ-3, when the standard deviation of BREQ-3 scores are 1 (as observed in our preliminary research). Furthermore, we will have 83% power to detect a mediator coefficient of 620, which was calculated assuming that the number of steps walked has a standard deviation of 3000 (as observed in our preliminary research), and adjusting for the confounding of intervention with BREQ-3 score. Therefore, we will have 81% power to detect a mediated effect of 372, which would explain 27.4% of the effect of the intervention through the indirect effect of autonomous regulation [67,68,69]. All testing will be 2-sided with α = 0.05.

Randomization

A blinded statistician will generate a randomization schedule to intervention or control based on a block randomized scheme with random block sizes. The block randomization approach [70] ensures the steady enrollment of game intervention participants, minimizing potential for lulls in which the social network receives fewer new members. This list will be used to number opaque envelopes that contain the words “intervention” or “comparison.” Carbon paper will be included in the envelopes for auditing purposes, and aluminum foil will also be used to ensure opacity of the envelopes. For each block, an equal number of intervention and control sheets of paper will be placed in envelopes in the order from the randomization schedule. Sealed envelopes will include study staff’s signature over the seal. When the interventionist meets a participant for orientation, s/he will open the first numbered envelope available, signing and dating the envelope to provide a paper trail.

Interventions

Participants in both interventions will follow the same study flow, attending a brief initial visit for consent with study staff and provision of an accelerometer for baseline testing (orientation visit). This visit will be followed by a baseline/randomization visit and three follow-up assessment visits (at 6, 12, and 18 months).

Comparison intervention

The comparison intervention will consist of the provision of an activity monitor and a goal negotiation process with study staff (i.e., setting step goals, action planning, and discussion for relevant problem solving). Participants will receive an activity monitor from the Fitbit Inspire line and download the accompanying Fitbit app. Study staff will provide the monitor and app and set up the app on the participant’s mobile device. Study staff will then go over how to use the monitor display and app. Participants will receive a written troubleshooting guide to help with common problems, such as how to update the app and how to reconnect the Bluetooth connection. Step goals will be negotiated between the interventionist and individual participants, with an initial suggestion of approximately 3,000 steps per day above baseline levels on 3 goal days per week. These numbers were based on published norms for older adults [71] as well as the acceptability of step goals in preliminary research [32, 33]. This is the template for goal suggestions, but participants will be able to modify this as they feel is appropriate.

Participants will receive weekly feedback emails from study staff that present their average daily step count for the previous week and personalized goal recommendations for the current week. Personalized goal recommendations for each week will start with participants’ initial goal and increase according to their weekly performance. If participants meet their previous week’s goal recommendation, the recommended goal for the current week will increase (1) the number of days to aim to achieve the current step count goal by one (e.g., “aim to achieve 4,500 steps on your 4 most active days” would change to “…5 most active days”; to a maximum of 5 days), then (2) the step count in 1,000 step increments (e.g., the previous example would increase to “aim to achieve 5,500 steps on your 5 most active days”; to a maximum of 8,000 steps). Participants will be encouraged to adjust their goals as desired, and any stated adjustment will be reflected in the weekly emails. The weekly feedback emails will also remind participants of their initial step count levels to highlight their progress, include supportive comments (e.g., “Every day is an opportunity to level up! You are making progress!”), and encourage participants to wear/sync their Fitbit devices.

Experimental intervention

We conducted formative human-centered design that theory-based program planning to develop the CHALLENGE intervention [60, 61]. Participants randomized to the intervention will go through the same processes and receive the same intervention content as the comparison arm, and will also be invited to participate in a PA-promoting game mediated by a social network. If a participant does not have a Facebook account, study staff will walk them through creating one. Study staff will provide an overview of the group and discuss basic privacy and good citizenship rules (e.g., no sharing of others’ posts outside the group, no insults, no offensive photo or text content, no inclusion of other identifiable people in photos). General privacy concerns will also be addressed, and the interventionist will suggest methods of dealing with any participant concerns regarding the information they post. Participants will not be required to share their step data in the group, though they may share that information if they so choose.

The Facebook group will be modeled after popular large-scale private groups, such as cooking clubs and book clubs. Thus, one large group will be created, rather than multiple smaller groups. Study staff will post weekly challenges in the Facebook group (Text Box 1). Over the course of the week, participants will reply to these challenges with images and other content obtained during walks. Participants will be encouraged to comment and react to others’ posts. Challenges will repeat each year, such that all participants will be exposed to every challenge regardless of when they join. Participants will be allowed to stay in the group even after the final follow-up, allowing “super-users” who are highly engaged to continue to motivate new participants. The sequence of challenges will remain approximately the same each year, as many challenges will be tied to specific holidays or seasons. All challenges have been designed to allow multiple responses per week and to encourage repeated photo posting.

Participants receiving the intervention will also be given a box of props/materials that can be used for some of the challenges. These will include cards, such as description cards for scavenger hunt-style challenges (see Text Box 1). We will provide cardboard cut-outs in the form of frames, masks, and other photo props that can be decorated and used in photos. Masks will allow participants to maintain anonymity as well as celebrate different holidays (e.g., Mardi Gras masks).

An interventionist will serve as a moderator for the Facebook group (a PhD-level behavioral scientist with experience in group-based PA promotion). The moderator will post the weekly challenge at the start of each week followed by a comment to this post providing an example response meeting the specified challenge (photo and text; Fig. 2). At the start of each week, the moderator will also post a wrap-up of the previous week. The wrap-ups will summarize the photos and discussion of the previous week and will include a badge (Fig. 3). Badges will reflect the corresponding weekly challenge content, and participants who posted that week will be tagged to this post in recognition of their contribution(s). Badges will reward challenge completion, not step goal achievement. This method of rewarding both task completion and performance as suggested by SDT is an autonomy-supportive way of handling rewards [72].

Study staff will abstract information on the social network weekly, taking screenshots and logging participants’ posts, comments, and reactions for the week. Though we did not encounter cyberbullying in preliminary studies, we will have procedures in place to deal with any interpersonal problems that arise. Problematic content will be flagged and discussed between the moderator(s) and study staff and then with the Principal Investigator. Based on this discussion, the content may be removed and the author notified. Participants will be encouraged to direct messages to the moderator(s) with concerns. The moderator(s) will create a management plan for repeat offenders.

We will use several methods from the marketing literature to encourage continuous participant posting. In moderator posts, we will include content shown to be associated with increased comments and likes, including photos, questions, entertaining and relational content, and recognition for posting [73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. Super-users will be recognized, with monthly posts highlighting the “power users” that posted each week that month. The weekly feedback emails for participants in the experimental group will additionally include feedback on participants’ Facebook engagement and a link to a REDCap survey to rate each weekly challenge.

Text Box 1. Illustrative examples of weekly walking challenges
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Illustrative post and example response by the moderator

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Illustrative example of a weekly summary of participants’ posts and badge used to recognize the contributions of study participants

Full size image

Retention strategies

Participants will be compensated for their time with $25 ClinCards that will be provided at each follow-up assessment (for a total of $75; ClinCards can be used as debit cards and will allow us to automatically add additional funds at each follow-up visit). Study staff will attempt to contact participants via phone and/or email to schedule upcoming study visits. Participants will be reminded by phone of assessment visits the business day before the scheduled visit. We will mail seasonal cards expressing appreciation for participating in the study (e.g., for winter holidays, the start of spring, etc.). The weekly emails will encourage participants to contact study staff if they encounter difficulties in using the various technologies employed in the study or have other issues they would like to discuss. Study staff will place phone calls to participants if they are not able to access their Fitbit data or note other evidence of potential disengagement.

Data collection

Assessments at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months will include objective and self-report quantitative measures (Fig. 4). Questionnaires will be completed online using a REDCap database. The REDCap database will also feature participant information and tracking data collection instruments that will be completed by study staff. We will create a new Fitbit or Google account for each participant and use this account to obtain participants’ activity data weekly. If participants already have an active Fitbit account, they will be allowed to use this account. We will strongly encourage the use of the provided Fitbit device. If this is not workable for participants and they feel they need to use their personal device for any reason, this will be permitted to avoid loss of participation. Data will be manually abstracted from the Facebook group continuously during the study (i.e., the content of all posts, comments, and reactions). Qualitative interviews will be conducted at 6 and 18 months (see below). Baseline measurements will collect sociodemographic data (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, marital status).

Primary outcome

Step count and physical activity

Because the emphasis of the intervention is on walking, steps will be the primary outcome and central measure of PA. Step count will be measured objectively using ActiGraph wGT3X monitors. A week-long assessment will take place at each measurement period. We will set the epoch length will be one minute and consider 2,020 activity counts per minute to constitute moderate-vigorous intensity PA [80] Non-wear time will be determined by 60 or more consecutive minutes of zero activity counts. Assessments will be considered valid if the monitor is worn at least 10 h per day on at least 4 days of the week. PA minutes (total, light, moderate-vigorous) will be secondary outcomes. For exploratory purposes, we will also abstract continuous step data from the Fitbit monitors.

Secondary

Motivation-related constructs

For the primary motivation analyses, we will use the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3 (BREQ-3). The BREQ-3 [81, 82] is a 24-item questionnaire that features six subscales to operationalize amotivation (e.g., “I don’t see why I should have to exercise”), external regulation (e.g., “I exercise because other people say I should”), introjected regulation (e.g., “I feel guilty when I don’t exercise”), identified regulation (e.g., “I value the benefits of exercise”), integrated regulation (e.g., “I consider exercise part of my identity”), and intrinsic regulation (e.g., “I exercise because it’s fun”). Responses are on a unipolar scale and range from “0-Not true for me” to “4-Very true for me”. Previous/preliminary research has found this scale to have acceptable internal validity, with Cronbach’s alpha statistics ranging from 0.73 to 0.86. We will use a composite of intrinsic, integrated, and identified regulation for an autonomous regulation score. We will also investigate differences between groups for each of the individual motivation sub-types.

We will measure autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the context of exercise using the Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES). The BPNES [83] is an 11-item scale that features three subscales to operationalize autonomy (e.g., “I feel that the way I exercise is the way I want to”), competence (e.g., “I feel I have made a lot of progress in relation to the goal I want to achieve.”), and relatedness (e.g., “My relationships with the people I exercise with are close.”). Responses are on a unipolar scale and range from “1- I don’t agree at all” to “5-I completely agree”. Previous/preliminary research has found this scale to have acceptable internal validity, with Cronbach’s alpha statistics ranging from 0.75 to 0.86.

Identity and values

We will measure exercise identity using the Exercise Identity Scale (EIS). The EIS [84] is a 9-item scale that assesses the degree to which an individual identifies as someone who exercises (e.g., “I consider myself an exerciser”). Responses are on a unipolar scale and range from “1-Strongly disagree” to “7-Strongly agree”. The EIS has demonstrated good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity [84,85,86].

We will measure value-based living using the Engaged Living Scale (ELS). The ELS [87] is a 16-item scale that features two subscales to operationalize valued living (e.g., “I have values that give my life more meaning”) and life fulfillment (e.g., “I am satisfied with how I live my life”). Responses are on a unipolar scale and range from “1-Completely disagree” to “5-Completely agree”. The ELS has demonstrated good internal consistency and construct validity, including in a large nonclinical sample and a clinical sample consisting of chronic pain patients [87].

Trait playfulness and playful experiences

We will use the Adult Playfulness Trait Scale (APTS) to operationalize disposition to engage in playful behavior among study participants at baseline. The APTS [88, 89] is a 19-item scale that features three subscales to operationalize fun-seeking motivation (e.g., “I am often the person who starts fun things in a situation”), uninhibitedness (e.g., “If I want to do something, I usually don’t let what other people may think stop me”), and spontaneity (e.g., “I often do things on the spur of the moment”). Responses are on a bipolar scale and range from “1-Stongly disagree” to “5-Strongly agree”. Psychometric studies have provided evidence of acceptable internal consistency for its subscales (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.68 to 0.87) [89] and criterion validity [90].

We will use the Playful Experiences Questionnaire (PLEXQ) to investigate the extent to which the targeted playful experiences were felt for the participants in the intervention group. The PLEXQ [91] is a 51-item questionnaire that assesses the occurrence of 17 distinct playful experiences (e.g., “Please respond about how you felt when you were playing the weekly challenges game… I enjoyed discovering new things”). The PLEXQ has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for its subscales (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.70 to 0.88) [91].

Acceptability and engagement

We will measure usability via the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS [92] is a 10-item scale that measures the usability of digital artifacts (e.g. “I think I would like to use this system frequently”). Responses are on a bipolar scale and range from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”. The SUS is a widely used instrument with evidence demonstrating its construct validity and reliability [93]. We will supplement these data with items designed to probe the acceptability of the technologies involved in the intervention (e.g., “How often did you have problems with the following pieces of technology not working?.The Fitbit”; “I felt comfortable using the group”) [94].

Finally, we will characterize participants’ engagement with the technological aspects of the study via systems usage data. For the comparison arm and the experimental arm, we will record the days over the course of the intervention and follow-up periods for which there is evidence of PA tracker device wear. For the experimental arm, we will characterize engagement with the social media group by recording all posts, comments, and reactions in the Facebook group.

Anthropometric and physical functioning data

Height will be measured using a wall-mounted stadiometer (Seca Corp., Hamburg, Germany). Weight will be measured using a calibrated electronic scale (Tanita, Arlington Heights, IL, USA). Two consecutive measurements of height and weight will be taken. If consecutive measurements are not within 2.5% of one another, a third measure will be taken. The two closest measures will be averaged. Height and weight will be used to calculate body mass index (kg/m²). We will administer the one-minute sit to stand test as an index of physical functioning [95]. The one-minute sit to stand test will be conducted by a blinded assessor. The blinded assessor may be present in person or by videoconference. We will employ recommended procedures for conducting this test, including using a standard, slightly padded armless chair with a seat height of 45.0–48.0 cm, having participants’ arms be crossed over chest, including a practice cycle, etc. [95].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Study constructs and their measures by assessment time point

Full size image

Qualitative interviews

To investigate participants’ experience with the intervention and identify issues related to sustainability, we will conduct brief qualitative individual interviews during the 6- and 18-month assessments. A trained research assistant will use a semi-structured guide to elicit participants’ feelings about their experiences associated with participating in the intervention. In the comparison arm, these questions will focus on using the activity monitor and their usage patterns. In the experimental arm, questions will focus on the game: how participants felt about the challenges, which challenges were most fun, and any negative experiences. All interviews will be digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim (qualitative analytic methods are described below).

Data analysis

We will use descriptive statistics to characterize the study sample and investigate process measures reflecting participants’ experiences with the wearable monitor/app and Facebook. From the database of information abstracted from Facebook and Fitbit, we will compute descriptive statistics for engagement (posts, comments, and reactions given, comments and reactions received, total days engaged, total number of engagements) and monitor activity (days the monitor was worn, daily steps). All between-group comparisons will be conducted in R (version 3.5 or later) and will follow intent-to-treat principles. Multiple imputation of missing data and transformation of non-normal data will be performed as needed.

Primary data analysis

Step count

We will use linear mixed-effects models to evaluate differences in steps from baseline between intervention conditions across 6, 12, and 18 months. We will evaluate terms for the main effects of intervention condition and time, as well as the interaction between intervention condition and time. The first set of models, to be fit after completion of the intervention by all participants, will include outcome values from the 6-month and 12-month time points (testing the effects of the intervention during the intervention period). Contrasts will be used to assess changes at each follow-up and between time points. Covariates will be included if they improve model fit as operationalized via the Bayesian information criterion. The second set of models, to be fit after completion of all data collection for all participants, will include 6-, 12-, and 18-month time points (testing changes from the intervention period to the no-intervention maintenance period). A linear trend will be modeled if fit criteria indicate that a simple trend is reasonable. We hypothesize that steps will be greater in the game intervention condition than the standard intervention at all time points.

Secondary data analysis

Motivation

We will fit separate linear mixed-effects models to investigate differences between intervention conditions over time for autonomous regulations, as well as separate models for intrinsic, integrated, and identified regulation. We hypothesize that each of these motivation types will be greater in the game intervention than in the standard intervention at each follow-up time point.

Mediation and moderation

To explore motivation-related potential mechanisms of the intervention effects, we will conduct longitudinal mediation analysis for outcomes (number of steps) measured at months 12 and 18 with autonomous regulation and each of its individual subcomponents measured at month 6 being the mediators of interest [96]. In this initial efficacy trial, we have prioritized investigation of autonomous regulation as a mediator, mirroring previous SDT-based intervention studies to allow clear comparisons [97]. We will use bootstrapping in testing for the indirect effect of each mediator on the outcome [98]. Note that exploring the potential indirect (mediation) effects may be recommended even when there is no significant treatment effect found on the primary outcome, for potential hypothesis generating purposes [99]. If a significant indirect effect is found for at least two potential mediators, we will conduct further mediation analysis using multiple mediator models [100]. In these analyses, we will control for the baseline outcome, as appropriate.

We will also investigate whether baseline variables for age, playfulness (trait propensity towards play) [88, 89], and physical functioning (as measured by the one-minute sit to stand test) [101, 102] moderate engagement and PA. We will fit linear models to investigate the impact of age, playfulness, and physical functioning on engagement as well as the impact of engagement on steps. We hypothesize that younger participants, more playful participants, and participants with greater physical functioning will have greater engagement. We also hypothesize that greater engagement totals will be associated with greater step counts. We will use linear models to investigate playful experiences between groups and across follow-ups.

Analysis of the individual weekly challenges

As an exploratory analysis, we will compare weekly step counts, weekly post frequency, and weekly self-reported PA enjoyment to investigate differences by challenge week. For this analysis we will employ a longitudinal mixed model as a function of time, with outcomes measured per week. Since challenge and time in the study are confounded, each effect will be modeled separately for each outcome. We will use nonlinear models and assess the fit of nonparametric smoothers using a generalized additive model formulation. To assess the relative impact of weekly challenges, we will perform a post-hoc set of pairwise comparisons of the relative effectiveness of each challenge in affecting each outcome. While our default computation will guard against Type I error inflation with a Tukey adjustment, we will also use Hsu’s “comparison with the best” formulation to identify which challenge (or group of challenges) produces the highest step counts, post frequency, and PA enjoyment. As many of the outcome variables are relative frequencies or counts, we will respectively employ a logistic or Poisson model formulation.

Qualitative analyses

Using NVivo software, two trained research assistants will conduct a thematic analysis of text and photos posted to Facebook and interview transcripts [103]. They will also use Michie and colleagues’ methods for coding behavior change techniques. Analysis will be overseen by EJL and DT, who are experienced in qualitative analysis [104,105,106]. Coding will be iterative, with initial codes based on Self-Determination Theory and additional codes based on grounded theory [107]. The qualitative team will meet to discuss any differences in coding.

Fidelity

Moderators will be trained by the Principal Investigator and will post pre-approved challenges and example posts verbatim. The moderators’ communication (e.g., weekly emails) will be largely scheduled and scripted (except for communications regarding scheduling, reporting unacceptable content, etc.). Study staff will record data from Facebook and Fitbit regularly, so we will be able to track the number of posts to the group per day.

Privacy and confidentiality

Participants will be informed of potential privacy and confidentially risks and practices in place to ensure protection in the informed consent. The initial orientation visit will also include basic information on privacy and confidentiality on Facebook. Participants will not be required to share their step data in the group, in order to maintain privacy of personal information (though they may choose to share that information if they like). Masks and similar props will allow participants maintain anonymity as well as celebrate different holidays as desired (e.g., Mardi Gras masks). The private Facebook group will only allow individuals participating in the study and study staff to join. The orientation process will include discussion on basic privacy and good citizenship rules (i.e., no sharing of others’ posts outside the group, no insults, no offensive photo or text content, no inclusion of other identifiable people in photos). Study staff will not reveal any sensitive information in Facebook and participants will not be required or encouraged to share personal health information in the private group. Data that could be used to identify a specific study participant will be handled with IRB-approved procedures.

Safety monitoring

Participants will be instructed to report illnesses and injuries to study staff promptly. Study staff will contact participants who report any such issues or reference possibly relevant issues in the course of the study proceedings (e.g., in response to the weekly feedback emails or in the Facebook group). To ensure safety, a qualified medical monitor will provide monthly review of participant safety and safety to continue the study based on data collected that month.

Ethics

All individuals involved in this study will participant in an informed consent process, and the study will be conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines and regulations established by the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Institutional Review Board (study protocol #19–0158).

Discussion

Pronounced demographic shifts and advances in healthcare have resulted in a large and growing population of older adults in the U.S. Older adult women can face unique challenges to engaging in recommended levels of PA and have poor adherence to PA guidelines [12,13,14,15]. Walking is a form of PA that is accessible and enjoyable for most older adult women, and emerging technologies can support walking interventions [23, 24]. Contemporary activity monitor systems, however, do not appear to be sufficient for bringing about lasting behavior change [36]. Part of the reason for this may be the framing of these intervention; a “celebratory framework” approach, emphasizing interest, meaning, personal values, and psychological needs, may be uniquely conducive to promoting PA adherence to older adult women.

The CHALLENGE study will evaluate if and how (i.e., proposed mechanisms of action) an intervention that supplements an activity monitoring system with elements of game design leads to lasting changes in PA patterns in older adult women. The intervention is designed to take a “celebratory technology” approach that targets SDT constructs known to predict sustained behavior change. By taking part in a year-long intervention centered on imbuing walking behaviors with experiences of autonomy and playfulness, participating older adult women may internalize health-promoting changes to their identity and relationship with PA. Study results will have implications for how we can harness powerful and increasingly ubiquitous technologies for health promotion to the vast and growing population of older adults in the U.S. and abroad.

This study has several potential limitations. First, our results will not be generalizable to all older women in the U.S. We chose to exclude adults over the age of 85 due to important differences in functional abilities between this population and older adults who are less than 85 years of age [8]. Generalizability is further limited by the convenience sampling we will employ, and the technology requirements inherent to the intervention. Participants may be relatively motivated to increase their PA and relatively interested in and/or comfortable with using the featured technologies. While we will evaluate the effects of some potentially moderating variables (i.e., age, physical functioning, and trait playfulness), additional studies will be needed to investigate (1) which contextual factors further influence intervention efficacy, (2) which specific components within CHALLENGE may be primarily responsible for driving results, and (3) how CHALLENGE might be able to adapt in real time and scale up to better serve participants.

The CHALLENGE intervention is the result of a systematic line of inquiry investigating how we can promote PA for older women in a way that is autonomy-supportive and readily scalable. We developed CHALLENGE as a theory-informed behavioral intervention that aims to simultaneously accomplish both instrumental (e.g., self-monitoring of PA) and experiential objectives (e.g., playful experiences) [61]. The present study is a randomized controlled trial that is powered to provide evidence reflecting the intervention’s efficacy and mechanisms of action. In accord with recommended guidelines [108, 109], the next steps in our research agenda will include further intervention refinement and research centered on the program’s dissemination and implementation using a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design.

Data availability

De-identified data will be deposited and made available through the National Archive of Computerized Data on Aging, an NIH-funded repository. These data will be shared with investigators working under an institution with a Federal Wide Assurance who request access. All external investigators must submit a written request identifying their research questions and specifying the data they would like to analyze. The request must include a data security plan. Requests will be reviewed by the investigators in conjunction with UTMB’s Institute for Translational Sciences (in particular, the regulatory and ethics resources) to ensure appropriate NIH requirements are followed.

Abbreviations

APTS:

Adult Playfulness Trait Scale

BMI:

Body Mass Index

BPNES:

The Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale

BREQ-3:

The Behavioral regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3

CHALLENGE:

Challenges for Healthy Aging: Leveraging Limits for Engaging Networked Game-based Exercise

EIS:

The Exercise Identity Scale

ELS:

Engaged Living Scale

NACDA:

National Archive of Computerized Data on Aging

NHANES:

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

NIH:

National Institutes of Health

PA:

Physical activity

PAR-Q:

The Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire

PLEXQ:

Playful Experiences Questionnaire

REDCap:

Research Electronic Data Capture

SDT:

Self-Determination Theory

SUS:

System Usability Scale

UTMB:

University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

References

  1. Landi F, Calvani R, Picca A, Tosato M, Martone AM, D’Angelo E, et al. Impact of habitual physical activity and type of exercise on physical performance across ages in community-living people. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(1):e0191820.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Martinez-Gomez D, Bandinelli S, Del-Panta V, Patel KV, Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L. Three-year changes in physical activity and decline in physical performance over 9 years of Follow-Up in older adults: the Invecchiare in Chianti Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(6):1176–82. 2017/03/02 ed.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ewald B, Attia J, McElduff P. How many steps are enough? Dose–response curves for Pedometer steps and multiple health markers in a community-based sample of older australians. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11(3):509–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gebel K, Ding D, Chey T, Stamatakis E, Brown WJ, Bauman AE. Effect of moderate to vigorous physical activity on all-cause mortality in middle-aged and older australians. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(6):970–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vasankari V, Husu P, Vähä-Ypyä H, Suni J, Tokola K, Halonen J, et al. Association of objectively measured sedentary behaviour and physical activity with cardiovascular disease risk. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24(12):1311–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hupin D, Roche F, Gremeaux V, Chatard JC, Oriol M, Gaspoz JM, et al. Even a low-dose of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity reduces mortality by 22% in adults aged ≥ 60 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(19):1262–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Catalan-Matamoros D, Gomez-Conesa A, Stubbs B, Vancampfort D. Exercise improves depressive symptoms in older adults: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Psychiatry Res. 2016;244:202–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bauman A, Merom D, Bull FC, Buchner DM, Fiatarone Singh MA. Updating the evidence for physical activity: summative reviews of the epidemiological evidence, prevalence, and interventions to promote active aging. Gerontologist. 2016;56(Suppl2):S268–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jefferis BJ, Sartini C, Lee IM, Choi M, Amuzu A, Gutierrez C, et al. Adherence to physical activity guidelines in older adults, using objectively measured physical activity in a population-based study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Evenson KR, Buchner DM, Morland KB. Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behavior among US adults aged 60 years or older. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9.

  11. Clarke CL, Sniehotta FF, Vadiveloo T, Argo IS, Donnan PT, McMurdo ME, et al. Factors associated with change in objectively measured physical activity in older people–data from the physical activity cohort Scotland study. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aoyagi Y, Shephard RJ. Sex differences in relationships between habitual physical activity and health in the elderly: practical implications for epidemiologists based on pedometer/accelerometer data from the Nakanojo Study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;56(2):327–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Straight CR, Brady AO, Evans E. Sex-specific relationships of physical activity, body composition, and muscle quality with lower-extremity physical function in older men and women. Menopause. 2015;22(3):297–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brugnara L, Murillo S, Novials A, Rojo-Martínez G, Soriguer F, Goday A, et al. Low physical activity and its association with diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors: a nationwide, population-based study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8):e0160959.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gretebeck KA, Sabatini LM, Black DR, Gretebeck RJ. Physical Activity, Functional Ability, and Obesity in Older Adults: A Gender Difference. J Gerontol Nurs. 2017/04/12 ed. 2017;43(9):38–46.

  16. Hodson L, Harnden K, Banerjee R, Real B, Marinou K, Karpe F et al. Lower resting and total energy expenditure in postmenopausal compared with premenopausal women matched for abdominal obesity. J Nutr Sci. 2014;3.

  17. Ward-Ritacco CL, Adrian AL, Johnson MA, Rogers LQ, Evans EM. Adiposity, physical activity, and muscle quality are independently related to physical function performance in middle-aged postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2014/03/13 ed. 2014;21(10):1114–21.

  18. Olanrewaju O, Kelly S, Cowan A, Brayne C, Lafortune L. Physical activity in community dwelling older people: a systematic review of reviews of interventions and context. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12):e0168614.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Zubala A, MacGillivray S, Frost H, Kroll T, Skelton DA, Gavine A, et al. Promotion of physical activity interventions for community dwelling older adults: a systematic review of reviews. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0180902.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Beishuizen CRL, Stephan BCM, van Gool WA, Brayne C, Peters RJG, Andrieu S, et al. Web-based interventions Targeting Cardiovascular Risk factors in Middle-aged and older people: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(3):e55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Services UD of, H. and H. Physical activity guidelines advisory committee scientific report. Wash DC US Dep Health Hum Serv. 2018.

  22. Hulteen RM, Smith JJ, Morgan PJ, Barnett LM, Hallal PC, Colyvas K et al. Global participation in sport and leisure-time physical activities: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2016/12/13 ed. 2017;95:14–25.

  23. Tudor-Locke C, Lutes L. Why do pedometers work? a reflection upon the factors related to successfully increasing physical activity. Sports Med. 2009/11/12 ed. 2009;39(12):981–93.

  24. Murtagh EM, Murphy MH, Boone-Heinonen J. Walking: the first steps in cardiovascular disease prevention. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2010/07/14 ed. 2010;25(5):490–6.

  25. Patel AV, Hildebrand JS, Leach CR, Campbell PT, Doyle C, Shuval K et al. Walking in Relation to Mortality in a Large Prospective Cohort of Older U.S. Adults. Am J Prev Med. 2017/10/24 ed. 2018;54(1):10–9.

  26. Lewis ZH, Lyons EJ, Jarvis JM, Baillargeon J. Using an electronic activity monitor system as an intervention modality: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):585.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. McCallum C, Rooksby J, Gray CM. Evaluating the impact of physical activity apps and wearables. Interdisciplinary Rev JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2018;6(3):e9054.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McMahon SK, Lewis B, Oakes M, Guan W, Wyman JF, Rothman AJ. Older Adults’ Experiences Using a Commercially Available Monitor to Self-Track Their Physical Activity. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016/04/15 ed. 2016;4(2):e35.

  29. Fanning J, Awick EA, Wojcicki TR, Gothe N, Roberts S, Ehlers DK et al. Effects of a DVD-Delivered Exercise Intervention on Maintenance of Physical Activity in Older Adults. J Phys Act Health. 2015/11/26 ed. 2016;13(6):594–8.

  30. Tiedemann A, Hassett L, Sherrington C. A novel approach to the issue of physical inactivity in older age. Prev Med Rep. 2016/02/05 ed. 2015;2:595–7.

  31. Cadmus-Bertram LA, Marcus BH, Patterson RE, Parker BA, Morey BL. Randomized trial of a fitbit-based physical activity intervention for women. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(3):414–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lyons EJ, Swartz MC, Lewis ZH, Martinez E, Jennings K. Feasibility and acceptability of a wearable technology physical activity intervention with telephone counseling for mid-aged and older adults: a randomized controlled pilot trial. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2017;5(3):e28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Lewis ZH, Ottenbacher KJ, Fisher SR, Jennings K, Brown AF, Swartz MC, et al. The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Finkelstein EA, Haaland BA, Bilger M, Sahasranaman A, Sloan RA, Nang EE et al. Effectiveness of activity trackers with and without incentives to increase physical activity (TRIPPA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016/10/09 ed. 2016;4(12):983–95.

  35. McDermott MM, Spring B, Berger JS, Treat-Jacobson D, Conte MS, Creager MA, et al. Effect of a home-based Exercise intervention of Wearable Technology and Telephone Coaching on walking performance in Peripheral Artery Disease the HONOR Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama-J Am Med Assoc. 2018;319(16):1665–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jonkman NH, van Schooten KS, Maier AB, Pijnappels M. eHealth interventions to promote objectively measured physical activity in community-dwelling older people. Maturitas. 2018/06/16 ed. 2018;113:32–9.

  37. Rapp A, Tirassa M, Know Thyself. A theory of the self for Personal Informatics. Hum-Comput Interact. 2017;32(5–6):335–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Grimes A, Harper R. Celebratory technology: new directions for food research in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2008. pp. 467–76.

  39. Caldwell AE, Masters KS, Peters JC, Bryan AD, Grigsby J, Hooker SA, et al. Harnessing centred identity transformation to reduce executive function burden for maintenance of health behaviour change: the maintain IT model. Health Psychol Rev. 2018;12(3):231–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Parker AG, Harper R, Grinter RE. Celebratory health technology. SAGE; 2011.

  41. Odom W, Banks R, Durrant A, Kirk D, Pierce J. Slow technology: critical reflection and future directions. In: Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 2012. pp. 816–7.

  42. Humphreys L. The qualified self: social media and the accounting of everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Kersten-van Dijk E, IJsselsteijn WA. Design beyond the numbers: sharing, comparing, storytelling and the need for a quantified us. IxD&A. 2016;29:121–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The what and why of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9(1):78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Brouwer AM, Mosack KE. Motivating healthy Diet behaviors: the self-as-Doer identity. Self Identity. 2015;14(6):638–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pelletier LG, Dion SC, Slovinec-D’Angelo M, Reid R. Why do you regulate what you eat? Relationships between forms of regulation, eating behaviors, sustained dietary behavior change, and psychological adjustment. Motiv Emot. 2004;28(3):245–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Brunet J, Burke SM, Sabiston CM. The benefits of being self-determined in promoting physical activity and affective well‐being among women recently treated for breast cancer. Psycho‐Oncology. 2013;22(10):2245–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wilson PM, Blanchard CM, Nehl E, Baker F. Predicting physical activity and outcome expectations in cancer survivors: an application of Self-Determination Theory. Psychooncology. 2005/11/24 ed. 2006;15(7):567–78.

  50. Milne HM, Wallman KE, Guilfoyle A, Gordon S, Corneya KS. Self-determination theory and physical activity among breast cancer survivors. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008/03/29 ed. 2008;30(1):23–38.

  51. Peng W, Pfeiffer KA, Winn B, Lin JH, Suton D. A pilot randomized, controlled trial of an active video game physical activity intervention. Health Psychol. 2015;34:1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Przybylski A, Rigby C, Ryan R. A motivational model of Video Game Engagement. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14(2):154–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ryan RM, Rigby CS, Przybylski A. The Motivational pull of Video games: a self-determination theory Approach. Motiv Emot. 2006;30(4):344–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Suits B. The grasshopper: games, life, and utopia. 2005.

  55. Caillois R. Man, play, and games. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Huizinga J. Homo Ludens. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tüzün H, Yılmaz-Soylu M, Karakuş T, Inal Y, Kızılkaya G. The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Comput Educ. 2009;52(1):68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Abuhamdeh S, Csikszentmihalyi M, Jalal B. Enjoying the possibility of defeat: outcome uncertainty, suspense, and intrinsic motivation. Motiv Emot. 2015;39(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lyons EJ, Tate DF, Ward DS, Ribisl KM, Bowling JM, Kalyanaraman S. Engagement, enjoyment, and energy expenditure during active video game play. Health Psychol. 2014;33(2):174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Robertson MC, Swartz MC, Christopherson U, Bentley JR, Basen-Engquist KM, Thompson D, et al. A Photography-based, Social Media walking intervention Targeting Autonomous motivations for physical activity: semistructured interviews with older women. JMIR Serious Games. 2022;10(2):e35511.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Robertson MC, Baranowski T, Thompson D, Basen-Engquist KM, Swartz MC, Lyons EJ. Using the Behaviour Change Wheel Program Planning Model to Design games for Health: Development Study. JMIR Serious Games. 2021;9(4):e29964.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Kraemer HC, Mintz J, Noda A, Tinklenberg J, Yesavage JA. Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006/05/03 ed. 2006;63(5):484–9.

  63. Leon AC, Davis LL, Kraemer HC. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45(5):626–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kabiri M, Brauer M, Shafrin J, Sullivan J, Gill TM, Goldman DP. Long-Term Health and Economic Value of Improved Mobility among Older Adults in the United States. Value Health. 2018/07/15 ed. 2018;21(7):792–8.

  65. Mankowski RT, Anton SD, Axtell R, Chen SH, Fielding RA, Glynn NW et al. Device-Measured Physical Activity As a Predictor of Disability in Mobility-Limited Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017/08/12 ed. 2017;65(10):2251–6.

  66. Cochrane SK, Chen SH, Fitzgerald JD, Dodson JA, Fielding RA, King AC et al. Association of Accelerometry-Measured Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Events in Mobility-Limited Older Adults: The LIFE (Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders) Study. J Am Heart Assoc [Internet]. 2017/12/05 ed. 2017;6(12). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29197830

  67. Vittinghoff E, Neilands TB. Sample Size for Joint Testing of Indirect Effects. Prev Sci. 2014/11/25 ed. 2015;16(8):1128–35.

  68. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The Moderator Mediator Variable distinction in social psychological-research - conceptual, Strategic, and statistical considerations. J Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–82.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Vittinghoff E, Sen S, McCulloch CE. Sample size calculations for evaluating mediation. Stat Med. 2008/12/10 ed. 2009;28(4):541–57.

  70. Lachin JM, Rosenberger WM. Randomization in clinical trials: theory and practice, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2016.

  71. Tudor-Locke C, Bassett DR. How many Steps/Day are Enough? Sports Med. 2004;34(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Rigby CS. Finding the right rewards to sustain player engagement. In Austin, TX; 2009.

  73. Kahle K, Sharon AJ, Baram-Tsabari A. Footprints of Fascination: Digital Traces of Public Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN’s Social Media Platforms. PLoS One. 2016/05/28 ed. 2016;11(5):e0156409.

  74. Kim E, Hou J, Han JY, Himelboim I. Predicting Retweeting Behavior on Breast Cancer Social Networks: Network and Content Characteristics. J Health Commun. 2016/03/24 ed. 2016;21(4):479–86.

  75. Lee MJ, Chen F. Circulating Humorous Antitobacco Videos on Social Media: Platform Versus Context. Health Promot Pr [Internet]. 2016/11/26 ed. 2016; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27887029

  76. Rus HM, Cameron LD. Health Communication in Social Media: message features Predicting user Engagement on Diabetes-Related Facebook Pages. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50(5):678–89. 2016/04/10 ed.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Strekalova YA, Damiani RE. Message Design and Audience Engagement with Tobacco Prevention Posts on Social Media. J Cancer Educ [Internet]. 2016/11/11 ed. 2016; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27832508

  78. Dolan R, Conduit J, Fahy J, Goodman S. Social media engagement behaviour: a uses and gratifications perspective. J Strateg Mark. 2016;24(3–4):261–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Ashley C, Tuten T. Creative strategies in social media marketing: an exploratory stud of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychol Mark. 2015;32(1):15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Tudor-Locke C, Camhi SM, Troiano RP. A catalog of rules, variables, and definitions applied to accelerometer data in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003–2006. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012/06/16 ed. 2012;9:E113.

  81. Markland D, Tobin V. A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2004 Jun;26(2):191–6.

  82. Wilson PM, Rodgers WM, Loitz CC, Scime G. “It’s Who I Am… Really!’The importance of integrated regulation in exercise contexts 1. J Appl Biobehav Res. 2006;11(2):79–104.

  83. Vlachopoulos SP. The basic psychological needs in exercise scale: measurement invariance over gender. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2008;15(1):114–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Anderson DF, Cychosz CM. Development of an Exercise Identity Scale. Percept Mot Ski. 1994;78(3):747–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Wilson PM, Muon S. Psychometric properties of the exercise identity scale in a university sample. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;6(2):115–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Anderson DF, Cychosz CM, Franke WD. Preliminary Exercise Identity Scale (EIS) norms for three adult samples. J Sport Behav. 2001;24(1).

  87. Trompetter HR, ten Klooster PM, Schreurs KMG, Fledderus M, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET. Measuring values and committed action with the Engaged Living Scale (ELS): psychometric evaluation in a nonclinical sample and a chronic pain sample. Psychol Assess. 2013;25(4):1235–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Shen XS, Chick G, Zinn H. Validating the adult playfulness trait scale (APTS): an examination of personality, behavior, attitude, and perception in the Nomological Network of Playfulness. Am J Play. 2014;6(3):345–69.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Shen XS, Chick G, Zinn H. Playfulness in adulthood as a personality trait: a reconceptualization and a new measurement. J Leis Res. 2014;46(1):58–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Barnett LA. Conceptual models of the playfulness construct: Additive, balanced, or synergistic? Arch Psychol [Internet]. 2018 Jul 15 [cited 2023 Dec 7];2(7). https://archivesofpsychology.org/index.php/aop/article/view/79

  91. Boberg M, Karapanos E, Holopainen J, Lucero A. PLEXQ: Towards a playful experiences questionnaire. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 2015. pp. 381–91.

  92. Brooke J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind. 1996;189(194):4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int J Hum-Comput Interact. 2008;24(6):574–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Vandelanotte C, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Acceptability and feasibility of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention using stages of change: project FAITH. Health Educ Res. 2003;18(3):304–17. 2003/06/28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Bohannon RW, Crouch R. 1-Minute sit-to-stand test: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PROCEDURES, PERFORMANCE, AND CLINIMETRIC PROPERTIES. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2019;39(1):2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. MacKinnon D. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Silva MN, Markland D, Carraca EV, Vieira PN, Coutinho SR, Minderico CS, et al. Exercise autonomous motivation predicts 3-yr weight loss in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(4):728–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004;36(4):717–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Rucker DD, Preacher KJ, Tormala ZL, Petty RE. Mediation analysis in social psychology: current practices and new recommendations. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2011;5(6):359–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Rikli RE, Jones CJ. Senior fitness test manual. Human kinetics; 2013.

  102. Ross RM, Murthy JN, Wollak ID, Jackson AS. The six minute walk test accurately estimates mean peak oxygen uptake. BMC Pulm Med. 2010;10(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Thompson D. Talk to Me, Please! The Importance of Qualitative Research to Games for Health. Games Health J. 2015/07/22 ed. 2014;3(3):117–8.

  105. Tsai E, Robertson MC, Lyons EJ, Swartz MC, Basen-Engquist K. Physical activity and exercise self‐regulation in cancer survivors: a qualitative study. Psycho‐oncology. 2018;27(2):563–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Robertson MC, Tsai E, Lyons EJ, Srinivasan S, Swartz MC, Baum ML, et al. Mobile health physical activity intervention preferences in cancer survivors: a qualitative study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2017;5(1):e3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Glaser B. Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Onken LS, Carroll KM, Shoham V, Cuthbert BN, Riddle M. Reenvisioning Clinical Science: Unifying the Discipline to improve the Public Health. Clin Psychol Sci J Assoc Psychol Sci. 2014;2(1):22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Czajkowski SM, Powell LH, Adler N, Naar-King S, Reynolds KD, Hunter CM, et al. From ideas to efficacy: the ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases. Health Psychol. 2015;34(10):971.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study underwent the peer review process and was funded by the National Institute on Aging at the NIH (primary sponsor; R01AG064092). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nutrition Sciences and Health Behavior, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, 77555-0177, USA

    Michael C. Robertson & Elizabeth J. Lyons

  2. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, TSET Health Promotion Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA

    Michael C. Robertson

  3. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatrics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Maria Chang Swartz

  4. Department of Health Disparities, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Karen M. Basen-Engquist

  5. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Yisheng Li & Kristofer Jennings

  6. US Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service, Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Debbe Thompson & Tom Baranowski

  7. Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology & Palliative Medicine, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Elena Volpi

Authors
  1. Michael C. Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Chang Swartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen M. Basen-Engquist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yisheng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kristofer Jennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Debbe Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tom Baranowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elena Volpi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Elizabeth J. Lyons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EJL conceptualized the research. EJL, MCR, MCS, KBE, DT, TB, and EV provided intellectual contributions to the study design and intervention development. YL and KJ provided intellectual contributions to the study design and statistical methods. EJL and MCR supervised the administration of the research. EV served as the medical monitor of the study. MCR and EJL wrote the original draft and revised the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and approved of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth J. Lyons.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Institutional Review Board provided ethics approval for this study (IRB #19–0158). All participants will provide informed consent prior to enrollment in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robertson, M.C., Swartz, M.C., Basen-Engquist, K.M. et al. A social media game to increase physical activity among older adult women: protocol of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate CHALLENGE. BMC Public Health 24, 2172 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19662-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19662-9

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us