Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29133282›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2017

Effectiveness of a Web 2.0 Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Real-World Settings: Randomized Ecological Trial.

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

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effectiveness of Social Media-Based Interventions for the Promotion of Physical Activity: Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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.

Corneel VandelanotteCentral Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4445-8094
Gregory S KoltWestern Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9223-3324
Cristina M CaperchioneUniversity of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2290-5946
Trevor N SavageSchool of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Southport, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6608-8664
Richard R RosenkranzKansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8242-3546
Anthony J MaederFlinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7398-2581
Anetta Van ItallieCentral Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6506-1996
Rhys TagueWestern Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1733-3827
Christopher OldmeadowUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6104-1322
W Kerry MummeryUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6583-0804
Mitch J DuncanUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9166-6195

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe translation of Web-based physical activity intervention research into the real world is lacking and becoming increasingly important.

objectiveTo compare usage and effectiveness, in real-world settings, of a traditional Web 1.0 Web-based physical activity intervention, providing limited interactivity, to a Web 2.0 Web-based physical activity intervention that includes interactive features, such as social networking (ie, status updates, online "friends," and personalized profile pages), blogs, and Google Maps mash-ups.

methodsAdults spontaneously signing up for the freely available 10,000 Steps website were randomized to the 10,000 Steps website (Web 1.0) or the newly developed WALK 2.0 website (Web 2.0). Physical activity (Active Australia Survey), quality of life (RAND 36), and body mass index (BMI) were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months. Website usage was measured continuously. Analyses of covariance were used to assess change over time in continuous outcome measures. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data.

resultsA total of 1328 participants completed baseline assessments. Only 3-month outcomes (224 completers) were analyzed due to high attrition at 12 months (77 completers). Web 2.0 group participants increased physical activity by 92.8 minutes per week more than those in the Web 1.0 group (95% CI 28.8-156.8; P=.005); their BMI values also decreased more (-1.03 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.41; P=.001). For quality of life, only the physical functioning domain score significantly improved more in the Web 2.0 group (3.6, 95% CI 1.7-5.5; P<.001). The time between the first and last visit to the website (3.57 vs 2.22 weeks; P<.001) and the mean number of days the website was visited (9.02 vs 5.71 days; P=.002) were significantly greater in the Web 2.0 group compared to the Web 1.0 group. The difference in time-to-nonusage attrition was not statistically significant between groups (Hazard Ratio=0.97, 95% CI 0.86-1.09; P=.59). Only 21.99% (292/1328) of participants (n=292 summed for both groups) were still using either website after 2 weeks and 6.55% (87/1328) were using either website after 10 weeks.

conclusionsThe website that provided more interactive and social features was more effective in improving physical activity in real-world conditions. While the Web 2.0 website was visited significantly more, both groups nevertheless displayed high nonusage attrition and low intervention engagement. More research is needed to examine the external validity and generalizability of Web-based physical activity interventions.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12611000253909; https://anzctr.org.au /Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=336588&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ufzw 2HxD).

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedEducation, DistanceExerciseFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adultbehavioral interventionexternal validityInternetonlinepragmatic trialWeb based

Identifiers

PMID29133282
PMCPMC5703981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.