Carolyn Laplante1, Wei Peng. 1. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA. laplan13@msu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review of e-health interventions targeting physical activity (PA) from January 2006 to November 2010 provides an updated and critical picture of the state of e-health as a facilitator for PA interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search yielded 31 articles that fit into the inclusion/exclusion criteria, which were analyzed in terms of study design quality, intervention characteristics, and support for e-health in PA interventions. RESULTS: The included articles met most of the study design criteria, but many did not isolate e-health technologies or use power analyses to calculate sample sizes. The interventions reflected a variety of technologies, audiences, and methods, and showed consistent use of theoretical frameworks to guide the interventions. Results regarding support for e-health's effectiveness in PA interventions were mixed and cannot provide definite conclusions. Only seven studies used pure control groups, and of those, four demonstrated support for e-health but the others showed no significant differences. The majority of studies using comparison groups showed no significant differences between conditions. No notable patterns emerged among the studies that did show support for e-health. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should utilize more rigorous methods that allow for better comparison across studies, such as power analyses, pure control groups, and objective PA measurements, which could lead to more definitive results regarding e-health's effectiveness for PA interventions.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review of e-health interventions targeting physical activity (PA) from January 2006 to November 2010 provides an updated and critical picture of the state of e-health as a facilitator for PA interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search yielded 31 articles that fit into the inclusion/exclusion criteria, which were analyzed in terms of study design quality, intervention characteristics, and support for e-health in PA interventions. RESULTS: The included articles met most of the study design criteria, but many did not isolate e-health technologies or use power analyses to calculate sample sizes. The interventions reflected a variety of technologies, audiences, and methods, and showed consistent use of theoretical frameworks to guide the interventions. Results regarding support for e-health's effectiveness in PA interventions were mixed and cannot provide definite conclusions. Only seven studies used pure control groups, and of those, four demonstrated support for e-health but the others showed no significant differences. The majority of studies using comparison groups showed no significant differences between conditions. No notable patterns emerged among the studies that did show support for e-health. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should utilize more rigorous methods that allow for better comparison across studies, such as power analyses, pure control groups, and objective PA measurements, which could lead to more definitive results regarding e-health's effectiveness for PA interventions.
Authors: Sheri J Hartman; Shira I Dunsiger; Catherine R Marinac; Bess H Marcus; Rochelle K Rosen; Kim M Gans Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Emily Y Zeng; Roger Vilardaga; Jaimee L Heffner; Kristin E Mull; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Chelsea L Kracht; Melinda Hutchesson; Mavra Ahmed; Andre Matthias Müller; Lee M Ashton; Hannah M Brown; Ann DeSmet; Carol A Maher; Chelsea E Mauch; Corneel Vandelanotte; Zenong Yin; Megan Whatnall; Camille E Short; Amanda E Staiano Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: François Boudreau; Gilles R Dagenais; Hein de Vries; Michel Jean Louis Walthouwer; José Côté; Ginette Turbide; Anne-Sophie Bourlaud; Paul Poirier Journal: Health Psychol Behav Med Date: 2020-12-08