Sarah Ann Buckingham1, Andrew James Williams1, Karyn Morrissey1, Lisa Price2, John Harrison3. 1. European Centre for Environment and Human Health, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, UK. 2. Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. 3. Occupational Health Support Unit, Devon and Cornwall Police, Middlemoor, Exeter, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of mobile health (mHealth) technology (including wearable activity monitors and smartphone applications) for promoting physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) in workplace settings. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane library). Studies were included if mHealth was a major intervention component, PA/SB was a primary outcome, and participants were recruited and/or the intervention was delivered in the workplace. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool. Interventions were coded for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) using the Coventry, Aberdeen and London - Refined (CALO-RE) taxonomy. RESULTS: Twenty-five experimental and quasi-experimental studies were included. Studies were highly heterogeneous and only one was rated as 'strong' methodological quality. Common BCTs included self-monitoring, feedback, goal-setting and social comparison. A total of 14/25 (56%) studies reported a significant increase in PA, and 4/10 (40%) reported a significant reduction in sedentary time; 11/16 (69%) studies reported a significant impact on secondary outcomes including reductions in weight, systolic blood pressure and total cholesterol. While overall acceptability was high, a large decline in technology use and engagement was observed over time. CONCLUSIONS: While methodological quality was generally weak, there is reasonable evidence for mHealth in a workplace context as a feasible, acceptable and effective tool to promote PA. The impact in the longer term and on SB is less clear. Higher quality, mixed methods studies are needed to explore the reasons for decline in engagement with time and the longer-term potential of mHealth in workplace interventions.Protocol registration: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42017058856.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of mobile health (mHealth) technology (including wearable activity monitors and smartphone applications) for promoting physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) in workplace settings. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane library). Studies were included if mHealth was a major intervention component, PA/SB was a primary outcome, and participants were recruited and/or the intervention was delivered in the workplace. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool. Interventions were coded for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) using the Coventry, Aberdeen and London - Refined (CALO-RE) taxonomy. RESULTS: Twenty-five experimental and quasi-experimental studies were included. Studies were highly heterogeneous and only one was rated as 'strong' methodological quality. Common BCTs included self-monitoring, feedback, goal-setting and social comparison. A total of 14/25 (56%) studies reported a significant increase in PA, and 4/10 (40%) reported a significant reduction in sedentary time; 11/16 (69%) studies reported a significant impact on secondary outcomes including reductions in weight, systolic blood pressure and total cholesterol. While overall acceptability was high, a large decline in technology use and engagement was observed over time. CONCLUSIONS: While methodological quality was generally weak, there is reasonable evidence for mHealth in a workplace context as a feasible, acceptable and effective tool to promote PA. The impact in the longer term and on SB is less clear. Higher quality, mixed methods studies are needed to explore the reasons for decline in engagement with time and the longer-term potential of mHealth in workplace interventions.Protocol registration: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42017058856.
Authors: Cora L Craig; Alison L Marshall; Michael Sjöström; Adrian E Bauman; Michael L Booth; Barbara E Ainsworth; Michael Pratt; Ulf Ekelund; Agneta Yngve; James F Sallis; Pekka Oja Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Deborah J Bowen; Matthew Kreuter; Bonnie Spring; Ludmila Cofta-Woerpel; Laura Linnan; Diane Weiner; Suzanne Bakken; Cecilia Patrick Kaplan; Linda Squiers; Cecilia Fabrizio; Maria Fernandez Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Krista S Leonard; Junia N de Brito; Miranda L Larouche; Sarah A Rydell; Nathan R Mitchell; Mark A Pereira; Matthew P Buman Journal: Transl J Am Coll Sports Med Date: 2022-09-15
Authors: Bradley MacDonald; Ann-Marie Gibson; Xanne Janssen; Alison Kirk Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Caitlin Haile; Alison Kirk; Nicola Cogan; Xanne Janssen; Ann-Marie Gibson; Bradley MacDonald Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stina Oftedal; Tracy Burrows; Sasha Fenton; Beatrice Murawski; Anna B Rayward; Mitch J Duncan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.390