Dataset Information

The Effectiveness of Planning Interventions for Improving Physical Activity in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Planning interventions such as action planning (AP) and coping planning (CP) have been recognized as influential strategies in promoting physical activity (PA), but mixed results of existing evidence have been observed. This study aims to perform a systematical meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of planning interventions for improving PA in the general population. Eight databases, including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ProQuest, CNKI, and Wanfang Data, were searched to locate relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to 31 December 2021. In total, 41 trials with 5439 samples were included in this systematic review, and 35 trials were used in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PA was better promoted in the planned intervention group compared to the control group (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.25-0.44, I² = 61.4%). Based on the subgroup analyses, we found that planning strategies were more effective among patients, males, when adopting AP intervention, when using the face-to-face sessions delivery mode, and when reinforcements were conducted during the follow-up. The findings of this study indicate that planning interventions significantly improved PA behavior, and, in some contexts, the effects performed better. Future research needs to be conducted to explore the underlying mechanisms of planning interventions and validate their effects more extensively.

SUBMITTER: Peng S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9223740 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Effectiveness of Planning Interventions for Improving Physical Activity in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Peng Sanying S Othman Ahmad Tajuddin AT Yuan Fang F Liang Jinghong J

International journal of environmental research and public health 20220615 12

Planning interventions such as action planning (AP) and coping planning (CP) have been recognized as influential strategies in promoting physical activity (PA), but mixed results of existing evidence have been observed. This study aims to perform a systematical meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of planning interventions for improving PA in the general population. Eight databases, including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ProQuest, CNKI, and Wanfang Data, were se ...[more]

PMID: 35742582

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) interventions can increase physical activity (PA); however, their long-term impact is not well understood.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study is to understand the immediate and long-term effects of mHealth interventions on PA. The secondary aim is to explore potential effect moderators.MethodsWe performed this study according to the Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsycINFO in July 2020. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials of mHealth interventions targeting PA as a primary outcome in adults. Eligible outcome measures were walking, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), total physical activity (TPA), and energy expenditure. Where reported, we extracted data for 3 time points (ie, end of intervention, follow-up ≤6 months, and follow-up >6 months). To explore effect moderators, we performed subgroup analyses by population, intervention design, and control group type. Results were summarized using random effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.ResultsOf the 2828 identified studies, 117 were included. These studies reported on 21,118 participants with a mean age of 52.03 (SD 14.14) years, of whom 58.99% (n=12,459) were female. mHealth interventions significantly increased PA across all the 4 outcome measures at the end of intervention (walking standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.55; P<.001; MVPA SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.21-0.35; P<.001; TPA SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.47; P<.001; energy expenditure SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.13-0.75; P=.01). Only 33 studies reported short-term follow-up measurements, and 8 studies reported long-term follow-up measurements in addition to end-of-intervention results. In the short term, effects were sustained for walking (SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.42; P=.002), MVPA (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.35; P=.008), and TPA (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.13-0.93; P=.009). In the long term, effects were also sustained for walking (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.10-0.39; P=.001) and MVPA (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.11-0.27; P<.001). We found the study population to be an effect moderator, with higher effect scores in sick and at-risk populations. PA was increased both in scalable and nonscalable mHealth intervention designs and regardless of the control group type. The risk of bias was rated high in 80.3% (94/117) of the studies. Heterogeneity was significant, resulting in low to very low quality of evidence.ConclusionsmHealth interventions can foster small to moderate increases in PA. The effects are maintained long term; however, the effect size decreases over time. The results encourage using mHealth interventions in at-risk and sick populations and support the use of scalable mHealth intervention designs to affordably reach large populations. However, given the low evidence quality, further methodologically rigorous studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term effects.

Project description:BackgroundGamification refers to using game design elements in nongame contexts. Promoting physical activity (PA) through gamification is a novel and promising avenue for improving lifestyles and mitigating the advancement of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, evidence of its effectiveness remains mixed.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of gamification interventions in promoting PA during short-term and follow-up periods in individuals with CVDs and to explore the most effective game design elements.MethodsA comprehensive search of 7 electronic databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials published in English from January 1, 2010, to February 3, 2024. Eligible studies used mobile health-based gamification interventions to promote PA or reduce sedentary behavior in individuals with CVDs. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened the retrieved records, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model with the Sidik-Jonkman method adjusted by the Knapp-Hartung method. Sensitivity analysis and influence analysis examined the robustness of results, while prediction intervals indicated heterogeneity. A meta-regression using a multimodel inference approach explored the most important game design elements. Statistical analyses were conducted using R (version 4.3.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing).ResultsIn total, 6 randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis of 5 studies revealed a small effect of gamification interventions on short-term PA (after sensitivity analysis: Hedges g=0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.45, 95% prediction interval [PI] 0.02-0.62). Meta-analysis of 3 studies found the maintenance effect (measured with follow-up averaging 2.5 months after the end of the intervention) was small (Hedges g=0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.29, 95% PI -0.01 to 0.41). A meta-analysis of 3 studies found participants taking 696.96 more steps per day than the control group (95% CI 327.80 to 1066.12, 95% PI -121.39 to 1515.31). "Feedback" was the most important game design element, followed by "Avatar."ConclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrates that gamification interventions effectively promote PA in individuals with CVD, with effects persisting beyond the intervention period, indicating they are not merely novel effects caused by the game nature of gamification. The 95% PI suggests that implementing gamification interventions in similar populations in the future will lead to actual effects in promoting PA in the vast majority of cases. However, the limited number of included studies underscores the urgent need for more high-quality research in this emerging field.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024518795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=518795.

Project description:Interventions to assist individuals in initiating and maintaining regular participation in physical activity are not always effective. Psychological and behavioral theories advocate the importance of both motivation and volition in interventions to change health behavior. Interventions adopting self-regulation strategies that foster motivational and volitional components may, therefore, have utility in promoting regular physical activity participation. We tested the efficacy of an intervention adopting motivational (mental simulation) and volitional (implementation intentions) components to promote a regular physical activity in two studies. Study 1 adopted a cluster randomized design in which participants (n = 92) were allocated to one of three conditions: mental simulation plus implementation intention, implementation intention only, or control. Study 2 adopted a 2 (mental simulation vs. no mental simulation) × 2 (implementation intention vs. no implementation intention) randomized controlled design in which fitness center attendees (n = 184) were randomly allocated one of four conditions: mental simulation only, implementation intention only, combined, or control. Physical activity behavior was measured by self-report (Study 1) or fitness center attendance (Study 2) at 4- (Studies 1 and 2) and 19- (Study 2 only) week follow-up periods. Findings revealed no statistically significant main or interactive effects of the mental simulation and implementation intention conditions on physical activity outcomes in either study. Findings are in contrast to previous research which has found pervasive effects for both intervention strategies. Findings are discussed in light of study limitations including the relatively small sample sizes, particularly for Study 1, deviations in the operationalization of the intervention components from previous research and the lack of a prompt for a goal intention. Future research should focus on ensuring uniformity in the format of the intervention components, test the effects of each component alone and in combination using standardized measures across multiple samples, and systematically explore effects of candidate moderators.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods.ResultsA total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95% CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95% CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults.ConclusionsInterventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension.

Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Project description:BackgroundBlended care interventions combine therapeutic guidance with digital care. Current research results show the promising role of the blended care approach in clinical care. This new way of delivering health care could have the potential to effectively promote physical activity in different public health settings.ObjectiveThe aim of the systematic review is to investigate the varieties of intervention characteristics of blended care interventions to promote physical activity in terms of structure, behavior change goals, behavior change techniques, and effectiveness of blended care interventions compared to a control group.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to March 2021 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcome data were extracted. Furthermore, the effect size on the outcome of physical activity was examined or calculated.ResultsIn total, the number of reports identified from the database searches was 4828. Of these, 25 studies were included in the review, with a total of 5923 study participants. Results indicated that the characteristics of blended care interventions showed a high heterogeneity. The combinations of therapist-guided interventions and digital interventions allowed the identification of specific subgroups, but they varied in length (range 8-52 weeks, SD 16.6), intensity, and the combination of the components. The most used combination of blended care interventions to promote physical activity was the combination of one-on-one meetings via telephone and Web-based interventions. Motivational models of behavior change were used most frequently as underlying theoretical foundations. Certain behavior change techniques were used consistently across the individual components, e.g., "problem solving" in the therapist-guided component and "feedback on behavior" in the digital component. Considering the effect size of blended care interventions compared with control groups, most studies showed a small effect.ConclusionsIt can be concluded that blended care interventions have potential to promote physical activity. In the future, further high-quality studies should investigate which type of blended care intervention is effective for which target group. Additionally, insights are required on which intervention characteristics are most effective, taking into account new evidence on behavior change. Registration This systematic literature review was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42020188556 ).

Project description:ContextTelehealth-delivered nutrition interventions are effective in practice; however, limited evidence exists regarding their cost-effectiveness.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions for improving health outcomes in adults with chronic disease.Data sourcesPubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Embase databases were systematically searched from database inception to November 2021. Included studies were randomized controlled trials delivering a telehealth-delivered diet intervention conducted with adults with a chronic disease and that reported on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis outcomes.Data extractionAll studies were independently screened and extracted, and quality was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.Data analysisAll extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to their telehealth modality and payer perspective, and were analyzed narratively.ResultsTwelve randomized controlled trials comprising 5 phone-only interventions, 3 mobile health (mHealth), 2 online, and 1 each using a combination of phone-online or phone-mHealth interventions, were included in this review. mHealth interventions were the most cost-effective intervention in all studies. Across all telehealth interventions and cost analyses from health service perspectives, 60% of studies were cost-effective. From a societal perspective, however, 33% of studies reported that the interventions were cost-effective. Of the 10 studies using cost-utility analyses, 3 were cost saving and more effective, making the intervention dominant, 1 study reported no difference in costs or effectiveness, and the remaining 6 studies reported increased cost and effectiveness, meaning payers must decide whether this falls within an acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold for them. Quality of study reporting varied with between 63% to 92%, with an average of 77% of CHEERS items reported.ConclusionTelehealth-delivered nutrition interventions in chronic disease populations appear to be cost-effective from a health perspective, and particularly mHealth modalities. These findings support telehealth-delivered nutrition care as a clinically beneficial, cost-effective intervention delivery modality.

Dataset Information

The Effectiveness of Planning Interventions for Improving Physical Activity in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

The Effectiveness of Planning Interventions for Improving Physical Activity in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets