OBJECTIVE: The aims of this literature review are to (1) summarise how computer and mobile technology-based health behaviour change applications have been evaluated in unintentional injury prevention, (2) describe how these successes can be applied to injury-prevention programmes in the future and (3) identify research gaps. METHODS: Studies included in this systematic review were education and behaviour change intervention trials and programme evaluations in which the intervention was delivered by either a computer or mobile technology and addressed an unintentional injury prevention topic. Articles were limited to those published in English and after 1990. RESULTS: Among the 44 technology-based injury-prevention studies included in this review, 16 studies evaluated locally hosted software programmes, 4 studies offered kiosk-based programmes, 11 evaluated remotely hosted internet programmes, 2 studies used mobile technology or portable devices and 11 studies evaluated virtual-reality interventions. Locally hosted software programmes and remotely hosted internet programmes consistently increased knowledge and behaviours. Kiosk programmes showed evidence of modest knowledge and behaviour gains. Both programmes using mobile technology improved behaviours. Virtual-reality programmes consistently improved behaviours, but there were little gains in knowledge. No studies evaluated text-messaging programmes dedicated to injury prevention. CONCLUSIONS: There is much potential for computer-based programmes to be used for injury-prevention behaviour change. The reviewed studies provide evidence that computer-based communication is effective in conveying information and influencing how participants think about an injury topic and adopt safety behaviours. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this literature review are to (1) summarise how computer and mobile technology-based health behaviour change applications have been evaluated in unintentional injury prevention, (2) describe how these successes can be applied to injury-prevention programmes in the future and (3) identify research gaps. METHODS: Studies included in this systematic review were education and behaviour change intervention trials and programme evaluations in which the intervention was delivered by either a computer or mobile technology and addressed an unintentional injury prevention topic. Articles were limited to those published in English and after 1990. RESULTS: Among the 44 technology-based injury-prevention studies included in this review, 16 studies evaluated locally hosted software programmes, 4 studies offered kiosk-based programmes, 11 evaluated remotely hosted internet programmes, 2 studies used mobile technology or portable devices and 11 studies evaluated virtual-reality interventions. Locally hosted software programmes and remotely hosted internet programmes consistently increased knowledge and behaviours. Kiosk programmes showed evidence of modest knowledge and behaviour gains. Both programmes using mobile technology improved behaviours. Virtual-reality programmes consistently improved behaviours, but there were little gains in knowledge. No studies evaluated text-messaging programmes dedicated to injury prevention. CONCLUSIONS: There is much potential for computer-based programmes to be used for injury-prevention behaviour change. The reviewed studies provide evidence that computer-based communication is effective in conveying information and influencing how participants think about an injury topic and adopt safety behaviours. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Melissa F Peskin; Christine M Markham; Ross Shegog; Elizabeth R Baumler; Robert C Addy; Jeff R Temple; Belinda Hernandez; Paula M Cuccaro; Melanie A Thiel; Efrat K Gabay; Susan R Tortolero Emery Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Leigh E Ridings; Tatiana M Davidson; Jesse Walker; Jennifer Winkelmann; Margaret T Anton; Hannah C Espeleta; Lynne S Nemeth; Christian J Streck; Kenneth J Ruggiero Journal: Clin Pediatr (Phila) Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 1.701
Authors: Chun Bong Chow; Wilfred Hing-Sang Wong; Wing Cheong Leung; Mary Hoi-Yin Tang; Ko Ling Chan; Calvin Kl Or; Tim Mh Li; Frederick Ka Wing Ho; Daniel Lo; Patrick Ip Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2016-10-31
Authors: Lara B McKenzie; Kristin J Roberts; Roxanne Clark; Rebecca McAdams; Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul; Elizabeth G Klein; Sarah A Keim; Orie Kristel; Alison Szymanski; Christopher G Cotton; Wendy C Shields Journal: Inj Epidemiol Date: 2018-03-12
Authors: Jieyi He; Wanhui Wang; Peishan Ning; Peixia Cheng; Jie Li; Ming Zheng; Shujuan Yuan; Lei Yang; Youyou Wu; Huiying Zong; David C Schwebel; Yang Yang; Guoqing Hu Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-11-20 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: James A Oxley; Georg Meyer; Iain Cant; Giuseppe M Bellantuono; Matthew Butcher; Andrew Levers; Carri Westgarth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Peishan Ning; Bo Chen; Peixia Cheng; Yang Yang; David C Schwebel; Renhe Yu; Jing Deng; Shukun Li; Guoqing Hu Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 3.295