Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics

From: A systematic review of just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) to promote physical activity

Author, year and country of study

Study design

Population, inclusion criteria and setting

Sample size and recruitment method

Participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, education, occupation, and socio-economic status)

Bond et al. (2014)

Thomas & Bond (2015)

US [30, 47]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Randomised study, each participant was randomised each week to one of three conditions.

Overweight/obese adults.

BMI equal to or over 25 kg/m2; 21–70 years.

Community.

N = 30.

Convenience sample recruited through adverts in local newspapers, research hospital network-affiliated internet/intranet and social media outlets (Facebook, Twitter).

M(SD) = 47.5 (13.5) years.

17% male.

67% white.

80% with some post high-school education.

60% employed full-time or part-time.

Ding et al. (2016)

US [31]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Randomised study.

College students.

Participants who reported being in the contemplation and preparation stage.

University.

N = 19.

Flyers posted across the University campus and invitations sent through department’s mailing list.

n = 11 aged 18–20 years, n = 5 aged 21–25 years.

63% (10/16) male.

Other characteristics not reported.

Finkelstein et al. (2015)

Ouyang et al. (2015)

US [32, 48]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Randomised study (cross-over design).

Overweight, sedentary women.

BMI > 30 kg/m2; inactive for more than three hours on an average day. Excluded if pregnant, unable to walk, medical reasons to limit activity, and poorly controlled hypertension.

Community.

N = 30.

Flyers and from previous focus groups in which participants provided feedback on messages and devices.

M(SD) = 52 (12) years.

0% male.

47% white.

Other characteristics not reported.

Gouveia et al. (2015)

Portugal [35]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Quantitative study.

Anyone with access to Google Play.

Community.

N = 256.

Online: Habito was posted on Google Play and voluntarily downloaded.

Participants were from Portugal, US, UK, India and China.

Other characteristics not reported.

He & Agu (2014)

US [36]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Qualitative study.

Psychology students of the Social Science Participant Pool of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) and two participants from the Interaction Lab of the Department of Computer Science at WPI

Not reported.

University.

N = 8.

Not reported.

Not reported.

Hermens et al. (2014)

Tabak (2014), Chapter 6

The Netherlands [20, 49]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Quasi-experimental study: single case experimental design.

People living with COPD who had completed a lung rehabilitation programme three months before the study.

Clinical diagnosis of COPD, no infection or exacerbation in the four weeks prior to measurement, current or former smoker, age > 40 years, able to speak and read Dutch, and internet access at home. Exclusion criteria: other diseases with low survival rate, other diseases influencing bronchial symptoms and/or lung function, severe psychiatric illness, need for regular oxygen therapy, known alpha1-antitrypsine deficiency, disorders or progressive disease influencing daily activities, and impaired hand function causing inability to use the application.

Secondary care.

N = 10 Hermens, N = 8 Tabak.

Recruited from a rehabilitation centre in the Netherlands.

Age range 49–64 years (61, 60, 60, 64, 59, 64, 49, 64, 63).

60% male (6/10)

5 out of 9 participants were employed.

Other characteristics not reported.

Lin et al. (2011)

Lin (2013), Chapter 5

The Netherlands [19, 27]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Mixed methods study.

Acquaintances (e.g. colleagues, friends) of the research group of the researchers.

Colleagues and friends of the researchers.

Not reported.

Community.

N = 6.

Personal contact.

M = 37 years, range 24–63 years.

83% male.

83% had completed higher education.

100% were employed.

Lin (2013), Chapter 6

The Netherlands [26]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Mixed methods study.

Working population.

Possession of Android phone, subscription to internet, living and working in or around Eindhoven, and working (not at home) at least four days per week.

Community.

N = 32 of which 25 finished the user test.

Through social media such as LinkedIn groups, University newspaper, newsletter by email, and the Motivate public website, and personal contacts.

M = 34 years, range 21 to 54 years.

68% (17/25) male.

96% (24/25) completed higher education.

100% were employed.

Pellegrini et al. (2015)

US [34]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Quasi-experimental study.

People living with type 2 diabetes.

Not reported.

Community.

N = 9.

Flyers posted in the Chicago land community and online postings (e.g., Craigslist).

M(SD) = 53.1 (10.7) years.

22% male.

22% white, 77% Hispanic.

Other characteristics not reported.

Rabbi et al. (JIMR, 2015)

US [28]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation, within-subject.

Randomised study.

Volunteers, including students and professionals.

Not reported.

Community.

N = 17.

Not reported.

M(SD) = 28.3 (6.96), range 18–49 years.

53% male.

24% professionals.

Rabbi et al. (UBICOMP, 2015)

US [25]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Quasi-experimental study: single case experiments.

Employees of Cornell University.

Proficiency in using smartphones, in the ready or action stages of the Transtheoretical Model.

University.

N = 16.

Cornell University’s Wellness Centre’s email list.

18–29 years: 25.0%. 30–39 years: 37.5%. 40–49 years: 18.7%. > 50 years: 18.7%.

44% male.

Other characteristics not reported.

Rajanna et al. (2014)

US [37]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Qualitative study.

Students, working professionals and people who work from home (development work).

Not reported.

Community.

n = 4 (ethnographic study); n = 47 (online study); n = 4 (prototype evaluation), n = 2 summative evaluation.

Not reported.

Ethnographic study:

2 were working professionals, 1 worked from home, 1 student; 25% male.

Online survey: 23 working professionals, 23 students, 1 ‘other’.

Prototype evaluation: 4 users were students, working professionals and working from home.

Summative evaluation: two graduate students in their twenties.

Other characteristics not reported.

Van Dantzig et al. (2013)

The Netherlands [33]

Feasibility study/pilot evaluation.

Qualitative study (study 1). Randomised study (study 2).

Study 1: office workers. Study 2: healthy office workers.

Study 1: not reported. Study 2: sedentary job, working at a computer not used by others, able to install the software, older than 30 years, owning a smartphone with Internet connection, no known physical handicap or other condition that makes physical activity (walking) impossible, not participating in another physical activity intervention.

Study 1 and 2: Worksite.

Study 1: N = 8. Study 2: n = 40 intervention group, n = 46 control group.

Study 1: not reported. Study 2: recruited via an external company.

Study 1:

Age not reported.

50% male.

Study 2 intervention group:

44.5 (7.9); range 30–57 years.

58% male.

Study 2 control group:

44.3 (8.0); range 32–63 years.

63% male.

Other characteristics not reported.

Van Dantzig et al. (2018)

The Netherlands [29]

Substantive evaluation.

Randomised study.

Employees.

Exclusion criteria: being ill, away from work for several days, significant change in lifestyle due to external or unforeseen circumstances.

Worksite.

N = 70.

Not reported.

Age range: 18–65 years.

73% male (based on N = 70 recruited).

Other characteristics not reported.