Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28049624›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of sports medicine2017

Using Web 2.0 applications to promote health-related physical activity: findings from the WALK 2.0 randomised controlled trial.

Gregory S Kolt, Richard R Rosenkranz, Corneel Vandelanotte, Cristina M Caperchione, Anthony J Maeder, Rhys Tague, Trevor N Savage, Itallie Anetta Van, W Kerry Mummery, Christopher Oldmeadow and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of sports medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A cumulative meta-analysis of the effects of individual physical activity interventions targeting healthy adults.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. The effectiveness of a web 2.0 physical activity intervention in older adults - a randomised controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Feasibility and acceptability of ExerciseGuideUK for those living with and beyond lung cancer: a mixed methods study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Effectiveness of Social Media-Based Interventions for the Promotion of Physical Activity: Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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

11 authors.

Gregory S KoltSchool of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Richard R RosenkranzDepartment of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Corneel VandelanotteSchool of Human Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.
Cristina M CaperchioneSchool of Health and Exercise Science, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Anthony J MaederSchool of Health Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Rhys TagueSchool of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Trevor N SavageSchool of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Itallie Anetta VanSchool of Human Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.
W Kerry MummeryFaculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Christopher OldmeadowHunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Mitch J DuncanSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimWeb 2.0 internet technology has great potential in promoting physical activity. This trial investigated the effectiveness of a Web 2.0-based intervention on physical activity behaviour, and the impact on website usage and engagement.

methods504 (328 women, 126 men) insufficiently active adult participants were randomly allocated to one of two web-based interventions or a paper-based Logbook group. The Web 1.0 group participated in the existing 10 000 Steps programme, while the Web 2.0 group participated in a Web 2.0-enabled physical activity intervention including user-to-user interaction through social networking capabilities. ActiGraph GT3X activity monitors were used to assess physical activity at four points across the intervention (0, 3, 12 and 18 months), and usage and engagement were assessed continuously through website usage statistics.

resultsTreatment groups differed significantly in trajectories of minutes/day of physical activity (p=0.0198), through a greater change at 3 months for Web 2.0 than Web 1.0 (7.3 min/day, 95% CI 2.4 to 12.3). In the Web 2.0 group, physical activity increased at 3 (mean change 6.8 min/day, 95% CI 3.9 to 9.6) and 12 months (3.8 min/day, 95% CI 0.5 to 7.0), but not 18 months. The Logbook group also increased physical activity at 3 (4.8 min/day, 95% CI 1.8 to 7.7) and 12 months (4.9 min/day, 95% CI 0.7 to 9.1), but not 18 months. The Web 1.0 group increased physical activity at 12 months only (4.9 min/day, 95% CI 0.5 to 9.3). The Web 2.0 group demonstrated higher levels of website engagement (p=0.3964).

conclusionsIn comparison to a Web 1.0 intervention, a more interactive Web 2.0 intervention, as well as the paper-based Logbook intervention, improved physical activity in the short term, but that effect reduced over time, despite higher levels of engagement of the Web 2.0 group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000157976.

Indexed as

ExerciseActigraphyAdultAustraliaFemaleHealth PromotionHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSelf EfficacySocial MediaAccelerometerPhysical activityRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID28049624
PMCPMC5654748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.