| Literature DB >> 21749967 |
Patrick W C Lau1, Erica Y Lau, Del P Wong, Lynda Ransdell.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of research has employed information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as the Internet and mobile phones for disseminating physical activity (PA) interventions with young populations. Although several systematic reviews have documented the effects of ICT-based interventions on PA behavior, very few have focused on children and adolescents specifically.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21749967 PMCID: PMC3222183 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Search and selection process for the articles
Overview of characteristics and main findings of included studies
| Author, | Participant | Study | Intervention | Intervention | Main Findings |
| Franklin et al, 2006, United States [ | 92 diabetic patients (8-18 years of age), 43 were female | Design: RCT | ICT group 1: Sweet Talk SMS (automatic scheduled SMS reminder of the goal set, daily tips, and monthly text newsletter on diabetes issues. Participants could reply to the SMS and get an extra SMS for reply) plus intensive insulin treatment and standard treatment (clinic visit once per 3 to 4 months and access to emergency hotline). | Duration: 1 year | Significantly greater increase in perceived social support to exercise in both ICT groups compared with control group No significant difference between the 2 ICT groups |
| Jago et al, 2006, United Kingdom [ | 473 boy scouts (10-14 years), 0 were female | Design: cluster RCT | ICT group 1: Internet-based PA program contained goal setting and a comic story on overcoming PA barriers plus face-to-face troop training started in the spring. | Duration: 9 weeks | Significant increase in light PA in ICT group 1 No significant between-group differences |
| Lubans et al, 2009, Australia [ | 124 school children (mean age 14.1), 71 were female | Design: RCT | ICT: social support email from investigator and pedometer self-monitoring plus printed PA and nutrition handbook and printed monthly newsletter for parents plus face-to-face school-based sport education program (structured PA session focusing on lifetime activities) plus information session (weekly diet and PA messages with teacher-demonstrated related activities to reinforce the message and summary lectures) | Duration: 6 months | Significantly greater increase in step counts in ICT group compared with control for both boys and girls Significantly greater increase in low active participants of ICT group compared with control group No significant difference in step counts in active participants between ICT group and control group |
| Marks et al, 2006, United States [ | 319 girls (12-14 years of age), that is, all 319 female | Design: RCT | ICT: Web-based PA program containing interactive games, quiz, downloadable charts to plan daily activity, and audio demonstration of PA activities | Duration: 2 weeks | Significant increase in PA self-efficacy and PA intention in both ICT and control groups Significantly greater increase in PA intention in control group compared with ICT group but not in PA, self-efficacy and PA level |
| Newton et al, 2009, New Zealand [ | 78 diabetic patients (11-18 years), 42 were female | Design: RCT | ICT: pedometer self-monitoring with a goal of at least 10,000 step/day plus motivational SMS reminder (participants could reply the SMS and get an extra SMS for replya) plus standard diabetes treatment | Duration: 12 weeks | Both groups decreased in step counts, but this was not statistically significant. No significant between-group differences |
| Patrick et al, 2001, United States [ | 117 adolescents (11-18 years, mean age 14.1), 43 were female | Design: RCT | ICT: interactive computer program (assessed and compared participant's self-reported PA and diet behavior with recommendations, gave feedback, and instructed the participants to select two behaviors that they are most ready to change and construct an action plan) plus provider counseling (provider review and discussion of the action with the participants) plus extended follow-up by mail for group 1 and by infrequent telephone plus mail contact for group 2, and frequent telephone plus mail contact for group 3 | Duration: 16 weeks | Significant improvement in moderate PA in all groups but no effect in vigorous PA No significant between-group differences |
| Prochaska et al, 2004, United States [ | 138 school children (12-14 years), 90 were female | Design: RCT | ICT group 1: one-session Internet-based PA assessment with tailored feedback | Duration: 12 weeks | Significantly greater increase in PA level in ICT groups compared with control groups for boys but not for girls |
| Shapiro et al, 2008, United States [ | 58 children (5-13 years), 36 were female | Design: RCT | ICT: parent and child to report their sugar-sweetened beverages, screen time, and PA goals by SMS plus immediate and automatic SMS feedback plus 3 face-to-face psychologist-led educational sessions | Duration: 8 weeks | No significant difference in step counts in all groups |
| Williamson et al, 2006, United States [ | 57 overweight girls (11-15 years), that is all 57 were female | Design: RCT | ICT: Internet-based PA and dietary program with tailored information and prescriptions and online counseling plus 4 face-to-face meetings at 1, 3, 6, and 12 weeks | Duration: 2 years | Significant improvement in self-reported exercise behavior in all groups No significant between-group differences |
a Information obtained from original author
Use of behavior change techniques (indicated by Abraham and Michie [37])
| Items | Franklin | Jago | Lubans | Marks | Newton | Patrick | Prochaska | Shapiro | Williamson |
| Provide information about behavior-health link | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Provide information on consequences | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Provide information about other’s approval | |||||||||
| Prompt intention formation | X | X | |||||||
| Prompt barrier identification | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Provide general encouragement | X | ||||||||
| Set graded tasks | X | ||||||||
| Provide instruction | X | X | X | ||||||
| Model or demonstrate the behavior | X | X | X | ||||||
| Prompt specific goal setting | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Prompt review of behavioral goals | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Prompt self-monitoring of behavior | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
| Provide feedback on performance | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
| Provide contingent rewards | X | X | Xa | X | |||||
| Teach to use prompts and cues | |||||||||
| Agree on behavioral contract | X | X | X | ||||||
| Prompt practice | X | X | X | ||||||
| Use follow-up prompts | |||||||||
| Provide opportunities for social comparison | |||||||||
| Plan social support or social change | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Prompt identification as a role model. | |||||||||
| Prompt self-talk | |||||||||
| Relapse prevention | |||||||||
| Stress management | |||||||||
| Motivational interviewing | |||||||||
| Time management |
a Information obtained from original author
Effect of ICT-based intervention on PA outcomes
| Sources | Effecta | |||
| Outcome Measure | Within-Group | Between-Group | Effect Size | |
| Franklin et al [ | Perceived social support to exercise | ↑ | + | 0.76 |
| Jago et al [ | Light PA | ↑ | ○ | 0.03 |
| Moderate PA | → | ○ | 0.08 | |
| Step counts | → | ○ | 0.24 | |
| Lubans et al [ | Step count, boys | ↑ | + | 0.80 |
| Step count, girls | ↑ | + | 1.2 | |
| Marks et al [ | PA self-efficacy | ↑ | ○ | Not applicable |
| PA intention | ↑ | — | 0.41 | |
| Self-reported PA | → | ○ | 0.39 | |
| Newton et al [ | Step counts | → | ○ | Not applicable |
| Patrick et al [ | Moderate PA | ↑ | ○ | Not applicable |
| Vigorous PA | → | ○ | Not applicable | |
| Prochaska et al [ | PA level, boys | ↑ | + | 0.95 |
| PA level, girls | → | ○ | 0.03 | |
| Shapiro et al. [ | Self-reported PA | → | ○ | 0.14 |
| Williamson et al [ | Self-reported exercise behavior | ↑ | ○ | Not applicable |
a The pre-post difference in PA behavior outcome in the intervention group was indicated by: “↑” for positive and significant, “→” for no significant change and “↓” for significant negative change. The pre-post difference in PA behavior outcome between the intervention group and control group was coded as “+” (significant difference favoring the ICT intervention group), “O” (no significant difference between groups), and “—” (significant difference favoring the control group).
Assessment of methodological quality and intervention exposures of the studies
| Items | Franklin | Jago | Lubans | Marks | Newton | Patrick | Prochaska | Shapiro | Williamson | |
| Were the eligible criteria specified? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Was the method of randomization described? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | |
| Was the random allocation concealed? (ie, was the assignment generated by an independent person not responsible for determining eligibility of the participants) | Yes | Yesa | Yes | Unknown | Yesa | Noa | Yesa | Yesa | Noa | |
| Were the groups similar at baseline regarding important prognostic indicators? | Yes | Yesa | Yes | Yes | Noa | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Were both the index and the control interventions explicitly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Was the compliance or adherence with the interventions described? | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Was the outcome assessor blinded to the interventions? | Noa | Noa | Noa | Unknown | No | Yesa | Yesa | Noa | Noa | |
| Was the dropout rate described, and were the characteristics of the dropouts compared with the completers of the study? | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Was a long-term follow-up measurement in both groups comparable? | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | |
| Was the timing of the outcome measurements in both groups comparable? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Was the sample size for each group described by means of a power calculation? | Yes | Yesa | Yes | Yes | Yes | Noa | Yes | No | Yes | |
| Did the analysis include an intention-to-treat analysis? | Yes | No | Noa | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | |
| Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the primary outcome measures? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Was the exposure frequency measured? | Yesa | Yesa | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | |
| Was the exposure duration measured? | Na | No | Na | Yes | Na | Yesa | Yes | Na | No | |
a Information obtained from original author
Na, Not applicable