Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40334267›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Podcasts in Mental, Physical, or Combined Health Interventions for Adults: Scoping Review.

Elizabeth M Dascombe, Philip J Morgan, Ryan J Drew, Casey P Regan, Gabrielle M Turner-McGrievy, Myles D Young

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Elizabeth M DascombeSchool of Psychological Sciences, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0009-0006-6909-5871
Philip J MorganCentre for Active Living and Learning, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5632-8529
Ryan J DrewCentre for Active Living and Learning, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4906-2993
Casey P ReganSchool of Psychological Sciences, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0202-6485
Gabrielle M Turner-McGrievyDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behaviour, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1683-5729
Myles D YoungSchool of Psychological Sciences, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7670-9196

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing prevalence of poor mental and physical health in adults is a global health concern. Given the scope of this problem, scalable and effective treatment interventions are needed. While podcasts (online digital audio files) are becoming more popular, the extent of podcast use in mental, physical, or combined health interventions has not been reviewed.

objectiveThis scoping review primarily aims to summarize the available evidence regarding the use of podcasts in health promotion interventions. A series of 5 research questions was designed to systematically review and accurately represent podcast use in current research interventions.

methodsWe conducted a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and CENTRAL), gray literature articles, and relevant journals reported in the English language. Eligible studies targeted adults (aged ≥18 y), included a podcast in at least 1 intervention, and measured a mental or physical health outcome.

resultsOverall, 51 articles (published studies: n=26, 51% and gray literature articles: n=25, 49%) were deemed eligible. In total, 58% (15/26) of the included peer-reviewed studies were published in the last 5 years, suggesting that the use of podcasts as an intervention approach is increasing. On average, 85.6% (n=2104) of the participants included in these research studies were women. In total, 31% (8/26) of the studies contained a female-only sample. In contrast, no research studies contained a male-only sample. Most peer-reviewed published studies (19/26, 73%) and gray literature sources (22/25, 88%) of the podcasts were used within multicomponent interventions, with most targeting physical health outcomes (peer-reviewed publications: 14/26, 54% and gray literature sources: 13/25, 52%). Results pertaining to podcast design, sources, theoretical principles, and thorough process evaluation indicators were heterogeneous.

conclusionsThe versatility that podcasts can offer as a medium for reaching and engaging with participants and end users was evident in this scoping review. While research using podcasts is growing, many (18/26, 69%) studies included in this scoping review were conducted in the United States and sampled female participants, highlighting the need to diversify the field. As expected, there was a high level of variation across the included studies in relation to how podcasts were used and designed within interventions. To address this, a standardized approach would be valuable in guiding researchers and practitioners through both the development and reporting phases of future podcast research, including aspects such as theoretical framework, a description of podcast development (eg, co-design and end-user engagement), objective podcast use, and process evaluation data.

Indexed as

Health PromotionMental HealthWebcasts as TopicAdultFemaleHumansMaleco-designend userhealth behaviorhealth promotioninterventionmental healthphysical healthpodcastscoping review

Identifiers

PMID40334267
PMCPMC12096026

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.