Dataset Information

A systematic review of just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) to promote physical activity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Progress in mobile health (mHealth) technology has enabled the design of just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs). We define JITAIs as having three features: behavioural support that directly corresponds to a need in real-time; content or timing of support is adapted or tailored according to input collected by the system since support was initiated; support is system-triggered. We conducted a systematic review of JITAIs for physical activity to identify their features, feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness.

Methods

We searched Scopus, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, DBLP, ACM Digital Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the ISRCTN register using terms related to physical activity, mHealth interventions and JITAIs. We included primary studies of any design reporting data about JITAIs, irrespective of population, age and setting. Outcomes included physical activity, engagement, uptake, feasibility and acceptability. Paper screening and data extraction were independently validated. Synthesis was narrative. We used the mHealth Evidence Reporting and Assessment checklist to assess quality of intervention descriptions.

Results

We screened 2200 titles, 840 abstracts, 169 full-text papers, and included 19 papers reporting 14 unique JITAIs, including six randomised studies. Five JITAIs targeted both physical activity and sedentary behaviour, five sedentary behaviour only, and four physical activity only. JITAIs prompted breaks following sedentary periods and/or suggested physical activities during opportunistic moments, typically over three to four weeks. Feasibility challenges related to the technology, sensor reliability and timeliness of just-in-time messages. Overall, participants found JITAIs acceptable. We found mixed evidence for intervention effects on behaviour, but no study was sufficiently powered to detect any effects. Common behaviour change techniques were goal setting (behaviour), prompts/cues, feedback on behaviour and action planning. Five studies reported a theory-base. We found lack of evidence about cost-effectiveness, uptake, reach, impact on health inequalities, and sustained engagement.

Conclusions

Research into JITAIs to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour is in its early stages. Consistent use and a shared definition of the term 'JITAI' will aid evidence synthesis. We recommend robust evaluation of theory and evidence-based JITAIs in representative populations. Decision makers and health professionals need to be cautious in signposting patients to JITAIs until such evidence is available, although they are unlikely to cause health-related harm.

Reference

PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017070849.

SUBMITTER: Hardeman W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6448257 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:PurposeThe aim of this mixed-studies systematic review was to ascertain the effectiveness of school-based interventions in increasing physical activity (PA) and/or reducing sedentary time (ST) in children aged 5-11 years, as well as to explore their effectiveness in relation to categories of the theory of expanded, extended, and enhanced opportunity (TEO).MethodsAdhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 5 databases were searched using predefined search terms. Following title and abstract screening of 1115 records, the removal of duplicates (n = 584) and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria agreed to a priori (n = 419) resulted in 112 records that were full-text screened. Two independent reviewers subsequently used the mixed-methods appraisal tool to assess the methodological quality of 57 full-text studies that met the inclusion criteria after full-text screening. The interventions were summarised using the TIDierR checklist and TEO. The strength of evidence was determined using a 5-level rating system utilising a published decision tree.ResultsOverall evidence ratings for interventions implemented within school settings were: no evidence of effects on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and inconclusive evidence of effects on sedentary time. In relation to the TEO, expansion of PA appeared to be the most promising intervention type for MVPA, with moderate evidence of effect, whereas extension and enhancement of PA opportunity demonstrated no evidence of effect. A critical issue of possible compensatory behavior was identified by analysis of intervention effect in relation to PA measurement duration; when studies measured changes in PA during the actual intervention, there was moderate evidence of effect, whereas those that measured changes in PA during the school day presented inconclusive evidence of effect, and those that measured changes in PA over a whole day yielded no evidence of effect. Two meta-analyses of those studies using a whole-day accelerometer measure for MVPA or ST showed a significant but moderate effect for MVPA (effect size = 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02-0.99) and a large but nonsignificant effect for ST (effect size = 1.15; 95%CI: -1.03 to 3.33); both meta-analyses demonstrated low precision, considerable inconsistency, and high heterogeneity.ConclusionThe findings have important implications for future intervention research in terms of intervention design, implementation, and evaluation.

Project description:ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsSystematic 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.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsWhile 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.