ReviewThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2026
Which combinations of behaviour change techniques work best? Evidence from meta-review of interventions addressing healthy diet and exercise after breast cancer.
Review in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe primary aim was to identify combinations including ≥ 3 behavior change techniques (BCTs) that are jointly used in behavioral interventions for women with/survivors of breast cancer, and result in a simultaneous improvement of physical activity, healthy nutrition behaviour, and healthy body weight maintenance.
methodsA meta-review integrated evidence from systematic, scoping, and pragmatic reviews. Ten databases were searched using ASReviews software and through manual searches, resulting in the inclusion of 32 reviews. The ROBIS tool was applied to assess bias risk. All combinations of ≥ 3 BCTs were identified in the original studies, and ratios of studies indicating a significant improvement to those with no improvement were calculated for three outcome domains. BCT combinations used in ≥ 10 original intervention studies (with ≥ 3 studies per each outcome domain) and supported in ≥ 85% of intervention studies were identified as the most promising.
resultsA total of k = 17,715 combinations were identified, including 3-12 BCTs. Only 46 combinations met the criteria for the most promising ones (supported by ≥ 85% of studies), with 7 combinations supported in ≥ 90% of studies. The promising combinations contained 3-6 BCTs included the following: goal setting (behaviour), problem solving, demonstration of the behaviour, self-monitoring of behaviour, instruction on how to perform the behaviour, feedback on behaviour, credible source. Interestingly, goal setting (related to behaviour or outcome) was present in 22 of the supported combinations, whereas demonstration of behaviour, problem solving, and self-monitoring were included more frequently (33, 32, and 26 of supported combinations, respectively).
conclusionsThis meta-review offers a novel approach to identifying BCT combinations that are jointly used in interventions resulting in an improvement in physical activity, healthy nutrition behaviour, and healthy body weight maintenance. These evidence-based combinations may serve as examples of good practices for promoting a healthy lifestyle in the context of breast cancer.
trial registrationPROSPERO database registration: #CRD420251130311.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.