Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35604757›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2022

Evaluation of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion: Scoping Review.

Karina Karolina De Santis, Tina Jahnel, Katja Matthias, Lea Mergenthal, Hatem Al Khayyal, Hajo Zeeb

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Karina Karolina De SantisDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7647-6767
Tina JahnelLeibniz-Science Campus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8367-4574
Katja MatthiasFaculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Applied Science Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7934-0256
Lea MergenthalDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6860-3295
Hatem Al KhayyalDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3853-9568
Hajo ZeebDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7509-242X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital interventions are interventions supported by digital tools or technologies, such as mobile apps, wearables, or web-based software. Digital interventions in the context of public health are specifically designed to promote and improve health. Recent reviews have shown that many digital interventions target physical activity promotion; however, it is unclear how such digital interventions are evaluated.

objectiveWe aimed to investigate evaluation strategies in the context of digital interventions for physical activity promotion using a scoping review of published reviews. We focused on the target (ie, user outcomes or tool performance), methods (ie, tool data or self-reported data), and theoretical frameworks of the evaluation strategies.

methodsA protocol for this study was preregistered and published. From among 300 reviews published up to March 19, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases, 40 reviews (1 rapid, 9 scoping, and 30 systematic) were included in this scoping review. Two authors independently performed study selection and data coding. Consensus was reached by discussion. If applicable, data were coded quantitatively into predefined categories or qualitatively using definitions or author statements from the included reviews. Data were analyzed using either descriptive statistics, for quantitative data (relative frequencies out of all studies), or narrative synthesis focusing on common themes, for qualitative data.

resultsMost reviews that were included in our scoping review were published in the period from 2019 to 2021 and originated from Europe or Australia. Most primary studies cited in the reviews included adult populations in clinical or nonclinical settings, and focused on mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion. The evaluation target was a user outcome (efficacy, acceptability, usability, feasibility, or engagement) in 38 of the 40 reviews or tool performance in 24 of the 40 reviews. Evaluation methods relied upon objective tool data (in 35/40 reviews) or other data from self-reports or assessments (in 28/40 reviews). Evaluation frameworks based on behavior change theory, including goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback on behavior, and educational or motivational content, were mentioned in 22 out of 40 reviews. Behavior change theory was included in the development phases of digital interventions according to the findings of 20 out of 22 reviews.

conclusionsThe evaluation of digital interventions is a high priority according to the reviews included in this scoping review. Evaluations of digital interventions, including mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion, typically target user outcomes and rely upon objective tool data. Behavior change theory may provide useful guidance not only for development of digital interventions but also for the evaluation of user outcomes in the context of physical activity promotion. Future research should investigate factors that could improve the efficacy of digital interventions and the standardization of terminology and reporting in this field. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/35332.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAdultAustraliaEuropeExerciseHumansTechnologybehavior change theorydigital healthdigital interventionsdigital technologyevaluationhealth promotionphysical activitypublic healthreviewscoping review

Identifiers

PMID35604757
PMCPMC9171604

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.