Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of technology-based distance interventions for promoting physical activity, using systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search of studies published between 2000 and 2015 was conducted in the following databases: CENTRAL, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, OTseeker, WOS and PEDro. Studies were selected according to the PICOS framework, as follows: P (population): adults; I (intervention): technology-based distance intervention for promoting physical activity; C (comparison) similar distance intervention without technology, O (outcomes) physical activity; S (study design) randomized controlled trial. Physical activity outcomes were extracted and quality was assessed by 2 independent authors. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. The mean (standard deviation; range) me thodological quality score of the studies was 6 (1.3; 4-8). Technology-based distance interventions were not more or less effective than conventional treatment whether measured as steps/day (mean difference 1,657; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1,861 to 5,176, p = 0.18), physical activity min/week (mean difference 0.34; 95% CI -146.3 to 146.9, p = 0.92), or as overall physical activity (response ratio 1.1; 95% CI 0.8-1.4, p = 0.65). No associations between the intervention duration or study quality and physical activity outcomes were found. Data were statistically and clinically heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of technology-based distance interventions for promoting physical activity is similar to that of conventional treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hakala et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: