Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37536963›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Use of geofencing interventions in population health research: a scoping review.

Karin Tobin, Omeid Heidari, Connor Volpi, Shereen Sodder, Dustin Duncan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Karin TobinHealth, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ktobin2@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1000-979X
Omeid HeidariChild, Family and Population Health Nursing, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4563-4029
Connor VolpiHealth, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Shereen SodderHealth, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Dustin DuncanDepartment of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

NCCIH Supplement to NCATS/CTSA Program for KL2 Scholars - M. SoddersKL2TR002317 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Christy Michelle McKinney · 2017 to 2026
$14.5M
A pilot Peer Mentor intervention that trains Black MSM to use and promote uptake of HIV/STI self-testing to peers and sex partners.R34MH118178 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI TOBIN, KARIN E · 2019 to 2021
$737k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002317NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH118178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTechnological advancements that use global positioning system (GPS), such as geofencing, provide the opportunity to examine place-based context in population health research. This review aimed to systematically identify, assess and synthesise the existing evidence on geofencing intervention design, acceptability, feasibility and/or impact.

designScoping review, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance for reporting. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane and PsycINFO for articles in English published up to 31 December 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were included if geofencing was used as a mechanism for intervention delivery. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) a component or combination of GPS, geographical information system or ecological momentary assessment was used without delivery of an intervention; (2) did not include a health or health-related outcome from the geofencing intervention; or (3) was not a peer-reviewed study. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Several researchers independently reviewed all abstracts and full-text articles for final inclusion.

resultsA total of 2171 articles were found; after exclusions, nine studies were included in the review. The majority were published in 5 years preceding the search (89%). Geofences in most studies (n=5) were fixed and programmed in the mobile application carried by participants without their input. Mechanisms of geofencing interventions were classified as direct or indirect, with five studies (56%) using direct interventions. There were several different health outcomes (from smoking to problematic alcohol use) across the five studies that used a direct geofencing intervention.

conclusionsThis scoping review found geofencing to be an emerging technology that is an acceptable and feasible intervention applied to several different populations and health outcomes. Future studies should specify the rationale for the locations that are geofenced and user input. Moreover, attention to mechanisms of actions will enable scientists to understand not only whether geofencing is an appropriate and effective intervention but why it works to achieve the outcomes observed.

Indexed as

Geographic Information SystemsPopulation HealthHumansepidemiologyHIV & AIDSmental healthpublic health

Identifiers

PMID37536963
PMCPMC10401224

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.