Feasibility, preliminary efficacy, and accessibility of a twitter-based social support group vs Fitbit only to decrease sedentary behavior in women

Abstract

Background: Health behavior change interventions delivered by social media allow for real-time, dynamic interaction, peer social support, and experimenter-provided content. Aims: We tested the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a novel Twitter-based walking break intervention with daily behavior change strategies and prompts for social support, combined with a Fitbit, vs. Fitbit alone. Methods: In a 2-group pilot, 45 sedentary women from a heart clinic were randomized to Twitter + Fitbit activity tracker (Tweet4Wellness, n = 23) or Fitbit-only (control, n = 22). All received a Fitbit and 13 weeks of tailored weekly step goals. Tweet4Wellness consisted of a private Twitter support group, with daily automated behavior change “tweets” informed by behavior change theory, and encouragement to communicate within the group. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and enrollment numbers, implementation challenges, and number and type of help requests from participants throughout the study period. Preliminary efficacy outcomes provided by Fitbit data were sedentary minutes, number of hours with >250 steps, maximum sitting bout, weighted sedentary median bout length, total steps, intensity minutes (>3.0 METS), and ratio of time spent sitting-to-moving. Acceptability outcomes included level of Twitter participation within Tweet4Wellness, and Likert scale plus open-ended survey questions on enjoyment and perceived effectiveness of intervention components. Survey data on acceptability of the features of the intervention were collected at 13 weeks (end-of-treatment [EOT]) and 22 weeks (follow-up). Results: The study was feasible, with addressable implementation challenges. Tweet4Wellness participants changed significantly from baseline to EOT relative to control participants on number of active hours p = .018, total steps p = .028, and ratio of sitting-to-moving, p = .014. Only sitting-to-moving was significant at follow-up (p = .047). Among Tweet4Wellness participants, each tweet sent during treatment was associated with a 0.11 increase in active hours per day (p = .04) and a 292-step increase per day (p < .001). Tweet4Wellness participants averaged 54.8 (SD = 35.4) tweets, totaling 1304 tweets, and reported liking the accountability and peer support provided by the intervention. Conclusion: A Twitter-delivered intervention for promoting physical activity among inactive women from a heart clinic was feasible, acceptable, and demonstrated preliminary efficacy in increasing daily active hours, daily total steps, and the ratio of sitting-to-moving from pre to post for the intervention compared with the control. Lessons learned from this pilot suggest that the next study should expand the recruitment pool, refine the intervention to increase group engagement, and select active hours, total steps, and ratio of sitting-to-movement as primary sedentary behavior measures.