Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29329587›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2018

The effectiveness of a web 2.0 physical activity intervention in older adults - a randomised controlled trial.

Stephanie J Alley, Gregory S Kolt, Mitch J Duncan, Cristina M Caperchione, Trevor N Savage, Anthony J Maeder, Richard R Rosenkranz, Rhys Tague, Anetta K Van Itallie, W Kerry Mummery and 1 more

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

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. "Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Effectiveness of Social Media-Based Interventions for the Promotion of Physical Activity: Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The effect of e-health interventions promoting physical activity in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

11 authors.

Stephanie J AlleyPhysical Activity Research Group, Appleton Institute, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia. s.alley@cqu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9666-5071
Gregory S KoltSchool of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2751, 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, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Cristina M CaperchioneSchool of Health and Exercise Science, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
Trevor N SavageGriffith University, School of Allied Health Sciences, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Anthony J MaederSchool of Health Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Richard R RosenkranzDepartment of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
Rhys TagueSchool of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2560, Australia.
Anetta K Van ItalliePhysical Activity Research Group, Appleton Institute, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia.
W Kerry MummeryFaculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H9, Canada.
Corneel VandelanottePhysical Activity Research Group, Appleton Institute, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 589903National Heart Foundation of Australia 100029National Heart Foundation of Australia 100427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInteractive web-based physical activity interventions using Web 2.0 features (e.g., social networking) have the potential to improve engagement and effectiveness compared to static Web 1.0 interventions. However, older adults may engage with Web 2.0 interventions differently than younger adults. The aims of this study were to determine whether an interaction between intervention (Web 2.0 and Web 1.0) and age group (<55y and ≥55y) exists for website usage and to determine whether an interaction between intervention (Web 2.0, Web 1.0 and logbook) and age group (<55y and ≥55y) exists for intervention effectiveness (changes in physical activity).

methodsAs part of the WALK 2.0 trial, 504 Australian adults were randomly assigned to receive either a paper logbook (n = 171), a Web 1.0 (n = 165) or a Web 2.0 (n = 168) physical activity intervention. Moderate to vigorous physical activity was measured using ActiGraph monitors at baseline 3, 12 and 18 months. Website usage statistics including time on site, number of log-ins and number of step entries were also recorded. Generalised linear and intention-to-treat linear mixed models were used to test interactions between intervention and age groups (<55y and ≥55y) for website usage and moderate to vigorous physical activity changes.

resultsTime on site was higher for the Web 2.0 compared to the Web 1.0 intervention from baseline to 3 months, and this difference was significantly greater in the older group (OR = 1.47, 95%CI = 1.01-2.14, p = .047). Participants in the Web 2.0 group increased their activity more than the logbook group at 3 months, and this difference was significantly greater in the older group (moderate to vigorous physical activity adjusted mean difference = 13.74, 95%CI = 1.08-26.40 min per day, p = .03). No intervention by age interactions were observed for Web 1.0 and logbook groups.

conclusionsResults partially support the use of Web 2.0 features to improve adults over 55 s' engagement in and behaviour changes from web-based physical activity interventions.

trial registrationACTRN ACTRN12611000157976 , Registered 7 March 2011.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth BehaviorInternetOnline Social NetworkingAgedAge FactorsAustraliaFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedSocial MediaTreatment OutcomeInternetInterventionOlder adultsOnlinePhysical activityWeb 2.0

Identifiers

PMID29329587
PMCPMC5766986

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.