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

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