Evaluation of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion: Scoping Review.
behavior change theory
digital health
digital interventions
digital technology
evaluation
health promotion
physical activity
public health
review
scoping review
Journal
JMIR public health and surveillance
ISSN: 2369-2960
Titre abrégé: JMIR Public Health Surveill
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101669345
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 05 2022
23 05 2022
Historique:
received:
08
03
2022
accepted:
09
04
2022
revised:
06
04
2022
entrez:
23
5
2022
pubmed:
24
5
2022
medline:
26
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Digital interventions are interventions supported by digital tools or technologies, such as mobile apps, wearables, or web-based software. Digital interventions in the context of public health are specifically designed to promote and improve health. Recent reviews have shown that many digital interventions target physical activity promotion; however, it is unclear how such digital interventions are evaluated. We aimed to investigate evaluation strategies in the context of digital interventions for physical activity promotion using a scoping review of published reviews. We focused on the target (ie, user outcomes or tool performance), methods (ie, tool data or self-reported data), and theoretical frameworks of the evaluation strategies. A protocol for this study was preregistered and published. From among 300 reviews published up to March 19, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases, 40 reviews (1 rapid, 9 scoping, and 30 systematic) were included in this scoping review. Two authors independently performed study selection and data coding. Consensus was reached by discussion. If applicable, data were coded quantitatively into predefined categories or qualitatively using definitions or author statements from the included reviews. Data were analyzed using either descriptive statistics, for quantitative data (relative frequencies out of all studies), or narrative synthesis focusing on common themes, for qualitative data. Most reviews that were included in our scoping review were published in the period from 2019 to 2021 and originated from Europe or Australia. Most primary studies cited in the reviews included adult populations in clinical or nonclinical settings, and focused on mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion. The evaluation target was a user outcome (efficacy, acceptability, usability, feasibility, or engagement) in 38 of the 40 reviews or tool performance in 24 of the 40 reviews. Evaluation methods relied upon objective tool data (in 35/40 reviews) or other data from self-reports or assessments (in 28/40 reviews). Evaluation frameworks based on behavior change theory, including goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback on behavior, and educational or motivational content, were mentioned in 22 out of 40 reviews. Behavior change theory was included in the development phases of digital interventions according to the findings of 20 out of 22 reviews. The evaluation of digital interventions is a high priority according to the reviews included in this scoping review. Evaluations of digital interventions, including mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion, typically target user outcomes and rely upon objective tool data. Behavior change theory may provide useful guidance not only for development of digital interventions but also for the evaluation of user outcomes in the context of physical activity promotion. Future research should investigate factors that could improve the efficacy of digital interventions and the standardization of terminology and reporting in this field. RR2-10.2196/35332.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Digital interventions are interventions supported by digital tools or technologies, such as mobile apps, wearables, or web-based software. Digital interventions in the context of public health are specifically designed to promote and improve health. Recent reviews have shown that many digital interventions target physical activity promotion; however, it is unclear how such digital interventions are evaluated.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to investigate evaluation strategies in the context of digital interventions for physical activity promotion using a scoping review of published reviews. We focused on the target (ie, user outcomes or tool performance), methods (ie, tool data or self-reported data), and theoretical frameworks of the evaluation strategies.
METHODS
A protocol for this study was preregistered and published. From among 300 reviews published up to March 19, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases, 40 reviews (1 rapid, 9 scoping, and 30 systematic) were included in this scoping review. Two authors independently performed study selection and data coding. Consensus was reached by discussion. If applicable, data were coded quantitatively into predefined categories or qualitatively using definitions or author statements from the included reviews. Data were analyzed using either descriptive statistics, for quantitative data (relative frequencies out of all studies), or narrative synthesis focusing on common themes, for qualitative data.
RESULTS
Most reviews that were included in our scoping review were published in the period from 2019 to 2021 and originated from Europe or Australia. Most primary studies cited in the reviews included adult populations in clinical or nonclinical settings, and focused on mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion. The evaluation target was a user outcome (efficacy, acceptability, usability, feasibility, or engagement) in 38 of the 40 reviews or tool performance in 24 of the 40 reviews. Evaluation methods relied upon objective tool data (in 35/40 reviews) or other data from self-reports or assessments (in 28/40 reviews). Evaluation frameworks based on behavior change theory, including goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback on behavior, and educational or motivational content, were mentioned in 22 out of 40 reviews. Behavior change theory was included in the development phases of digital interventions according to the findings of 20 out of 22 reviews.
CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation of digital interventions is a high priority according to the reviews included in this scoping review. Evaluations of digital interventions, including mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion, typically target user outcomes and rely upon objective tool data. Behavior change theory may provide useful guidance not only for development of digital interventions but also for the evaluation of user outcomes in the context of physical activity promotion. Future research should investigate factors that could improve the efficacy of digital interventions and the standardization of terminology and reporting in this field.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.2196/35332.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35604757
pii: v8i5e37820
doi: 10.2196/37820
pmc: PMC9171604
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e37820Informations de copyright
©Karina Karolina De Santis, Tina Jahnel, Katja Matthias, Lea Mergenthal, Hatem Al Khayyal, Hajo Zeeb. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 23.05.2022.
Références
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):843-851
pubmed: 27745684
Br J Sports Med. 2021 Apr;55(8):422-432
pubmed: 33355160
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Apr 12;7(4):e11819
pubmed: 30977740
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 11;10(6):e0129622
pubmed: 26068231
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Sep 8;23(9):e28356
pubmed: 34494965
Ann Behav Med. 2017 Apr;51(2):226-239
pubmed: 27757789
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 18;20(4):e122
pubmed: 29669703
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021 May 26;37(1):e66
pubmed: 34034851
JMIR Ment Health. 2021 Dec 20;8(12):e30000
pubmed: 34931995
Rheumatol Int. 2018 Sep;38(9):1623-1634
pubmed: 29556750
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 07;17(21):
pubmed: 33171871
Obes Rev. 2018 Oct;19(10):1340-1358
pubmed: 30156044
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jul 21;9(7):e24308
pubmed: 34287209
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Oct;26(10):3323-3336
pubmed: 29909476
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 21;14(6):e161
pubmed: 23171838
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Feb 1;9(2):e22601
pubmed: 33522980
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Nov 9;18(1):148
pubmed: 34753490
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Nov 22;7(11):e32951
pubmed: 34813493
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Oct;54(20):1188-1194
pubmed: 31399430
J Phys Act Health. 2014 Mar;11(3):665-77
pubmed: 23493018
J Rehabil Med. 2019 Mar 13;51(3):151-159
pubmed: 30843082
Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2020 Mar;7(1):25-38
pubmed: 33365227
J Phys Act Health. 2019 Jul 28;16(8):667-676
pubmed: 31203705
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020 Feb;63(2):137-144
pubmed: 31919531
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 19;21(3):e12053
pubmed: 30888321
Semin Oncol Nurs. 2020 Dec;36(6):151092
pubmed: 33223409
Crit Care Resusc. 2017 Sep;19(3):197-204
pubmed: 28866969
J Med Internet Res. 2007 Sep 30;9(3):e26
pubmed: 17942388
Am J Prev Med. 2015 Sep;49(3):414-8
pubmed: 26071863
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021 Apr;61(4):676-687
pubmed: 33451865
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
Res Synth Methods. 2022 Jul;13(4):424-433
pubmed: 34664766
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Mar 23;6(3):e58
pubmed: 29572200
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Nov 17;23(11):e26931
pubmed: 34787575
JMIR Res Protoc. 2022 Mar 3;11(3):e35332
pubmed: 35238321
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95
pubmed: 23512568
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jul 22;8(7):e15576
pubmed: 32706685
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Nov 09;4(11):
pubmed: 26553211
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 18;17(1):
pubmed: 31861359
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jan 18;9(1):e16282
pubmed: 33459598
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Nov 6;21(1):229
pubmed: 33158430
J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 14;23(5):e23499
pubmed: 33988509
Front Public Health. 2022 Jan 03;9:735624
pubmed: 35047469
Sports Med. 2014 May;44(5):671-86
pubmed: 24497157
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014 May-Jun;58(3):314-9
pubmed: 24485546
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Nov 23;4(4):e129
pubmed: 27881359
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 16;7(1):e11098
pubmed: 30664474
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Mar 06;5(3):e28
pubmed: 28264796
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021 Dec;18(sup1):5-8
pubmed: 34845960
Am J Health Promot. 2020 May;34(4):418-430
pubmed: 31858812
J Cancer Surviv. 2017 Dec;11(6):704-719
pubmed: 28779220
J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 14;23(5):e19688
pubmed: 33988126
Heliyon. 2020 Sep 01;6(9):e04776
pubmed: 32939412
PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 02;7(11):e1000360
pubmed: 21072245
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020 Jul 26;91:104211
pubmed: 32739713
Front Public Health. 2022 Feb 22;10:798797
pubmed: 35273938
Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2020 Apr 21;17:7
pubmed: 32336996
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 27;17(7):
pubmed: 32230769
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 17;9(12):e031868
pubmed: 31852702
Gerontologist. 2020 May 15;60(4):682-692
pubmed: 31350898
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 13;15(8):e0237585
pubmed: 32790752
Games Health J. 2015 Dec;4(6):460-9
pubmed: 26397179
Public Health. 2019 Oct;175:8-18
pubmed: 31374453
Health Psychol. 2009 Nov;28(6):690-701
pubmed: 19916637
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2021 Oct;64(10):1232-1240
pubmed: 34529095
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Dec 24;21(1):
pubmed: 33374322
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Jun;36(3):204-216
pubmed: 32297588
Physiotherapy. 2021 Jun;111:23-30
pubmed: 33316865
COPD. 2017 Oct;14(5):543-551
pubmed: 28836871
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 19;23(2):e23180
pubmed: 33605897
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Aug;136:84-95
pubmed: 33741503
Obes Rev. 2021 Jul;22 Suppl 4:e13258
pubmed: 33949778
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 12;7(2):e11847
pubmed: 30747716