Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25891063›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of preventive medicine2015

Technologies to measure and modify physical activity and eating environments.

Abby C King, Karen Glanz, Kevin Patrick

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Implementation of Brain BreaksInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Implementation of Brain BreaksInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Leveraging Citizen Science and Information Technology for Population Physical Activity Promotion.Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Abby C KingDepartment of Health Research & Policy and Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: king@stanford.edu.
Karen GlanzPerelman School of Medicine and School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Kevin PatrickDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine and the Center for Wireless and Population Health Systems, Qualcomm Institute/Calit2, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California.

Funding

6 Year Study of Seniors Neighborhood Environments, Physical Activity & FunctionR01HL109222 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI KING, ABBY C, SALLIS, JAMES F. · 2011 to 2014
$3.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL109222NHLBI NIH HHS R01HL109222
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe explosion of technologic advances in information capture and delivery offers unparalleled opportunities to assess and modify built and social environments in ways that can positively impact health behaviors. This paper highlights some potentially transformative current and emerging trends in the technology arena applicable to environmental context-based assessment and intervention relevant to physical activity and dietary behaviors. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A team of experts convened in 2013 to discuss the main issues related to technology use in assessing and changing built environments for health behaviors particularly relevant to obesity prevention. Each expert was assigned a specific domain to describe, commensurate with their research and expertise in the field, along with examples of specific applications. This activity was accompanied by selective examination of published literature to cover the main issues and elucidate relevant applications of technologic tools and innovations in this field. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Decisions concerning which technology examples to highlight were reached through discussion and consensus-building among the team of experts. Two levels of impact are highlighted: the "me" domain, which primarily targets measurement and intervention activities aimed at individual-level behaviors and their surrounding environments; and the "we" domain, which generally focuses on aggregated data aimed at groups and larger population segments and locales.

conclusionsThe paper ends with a set of challenges and opportunities for significantly advancing the field. Key areas for progress include data collection and expansion, managing technologic considerations, and working across sectors to maximize the population potential of behavioral health technologies.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorMotor ActivityHumansTelemetry

Identifiers

PMID25891063
PMCPMC7155784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.