Digital interventions to moderate physical inactivity and/or nutrition in young people: a Cancer Prevention Europe overview of systematic reviews.

cancer diet digital health evidence appraisal evidence synthesis physical activity public health systematic reviews

Journal

Frontiers in digital health
ISSN: 2673-253X
Titre abrégé: Front Digit Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101771889

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 13 03 2023
accepted: 18 05 2023
medline: 3 8 2023
pubmed: 3 8 2023
entrez: 3 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Strategies to increase physical activity (PA) and improve nutrition would contribute to substantial health benefits in the population, including reducing the risk of several types of cancers. The increasing accessibility of digital technologies mean that these tools could potentially facilitate the improvement of health behaviours among young people. We conducted a review of systematic reviews to assess the available evidence on digital interventions aimed at increasing physical activity and good nutrition in sub-populations of young people (school-aged children, college/university students, young adults only (over 18 years) and both adolescent and young adults (<25 years)). Searches for systematic reviews were conducted across relevant databases including KSR Evidence (www.ksrevidence.com), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; CRD). Records were independently screened by title and abstract by two reviewers and those deemed eligible were obtained for full text screening. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. We employed a narrative analysis and developed evidence gap maps. Twenty-four reviews were included with at least one for each sub-population and employing a range of digital interventions. The quality of evidence was limited with only one of the 24 of reviews overall judged as low RoB. Definitions of "digital intervention" greatly varied across systematic reviews with some reported interventions fitting into more than one category (i.e., an internet intervention could also be a mobile phone or computer intervention), however definitions as reported in the relevant reviews were used. No reviews reported cancer incidence or related outcomes. Available evidence was limited both by sub-population and type of intervention, but evidence was most pronounced in school-aged children. In school-aged children eHealth interventions, defined as school-based programmes delivered by the internet, computers, tablets, mobile technology, or tele-health methods, improved outcomes. Accelerometer-measured (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD] 0.33, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.61) and self-reported (SMD: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.23) PA increased, as did fruit and vegetable intake (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19) (review rated as low RoB, minimal to considerable heterogeneity across results). No difference was reported for consumption of fat post-intervention (SMD: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.03) or sugar sweetened beverages(SSB) and snack consumption combined post-intervention (SMD: -0.02, 95% CI:-0.10 to 0.06),or at the follow up (studies reported 2 weeks to 36 months follow-up) after the intervention (SMD:-0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.03) (review rated low ROB, minimal to substantial heterogeneity across results). Smartphone based interventions utilising Short Messaging Service (SMS), app or combined approaches also improved PA measured using objective and subjective methods (SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.77) when compared to controls, with increases in total PA [weighted mean difference (WMD) 32.35 min per day, 95% CI: 10.36 to 54.33] and in daily steps (WMD: 1,185, 95% CI: 303 to 2,068) (review rated as high RoB, moderate to substantial heterogeneity across results). For all results, interpretation has limitations in terms of RoB and presence of unexplained heterogeneity. This review of reviews has identified limited evidence that suggests some potential for digital interventions to increase PA and, to lesser extent, improve nutrition in school-aged children. However, effects can be small and based on less robust evidence. The body of evidence is characterised by a considerable level of heterogeneity, unclear/overlapping populations and intervention definitions, and a low methodological quality of systematic reviews. The heterogeneity across studies is further complicated when the age (older vs. more recent), interactivity (feedback/survey vs. no/less feedback/surveys), and accessibility (type of device) of the digital intervention is considered. This underscores the difficulty in synthesising evidence in a field with rapidly evolving technology and the resulting challenges in recommending the use of digital technology in public health. There is an urgent need for further research using contemporary technology and appropriate methods.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Strategies to increase physical activity (PA) and improve nutrition would contribute to substantial health benefits in the population, including reducing the risk of several types of cancers. The increasing accessibility of digital technologies mean that these tools could potentially facilitate the improvement of health behaviours among young people.
Objective UNASSIGNED
We conducted a review of systematic reviews to assess the available evidence on digital interventions aimed at increasing physical activity and good nutrition in sub-populations of young people (school-aged children, college/university students, young adults only (over 18 years) and both adolescent and young adults (<25 years)).
Methods UNASSIGNED
Searches for systematic reviews were conducted across relevant databases including KSR Evidence (www.ksrevidence.com), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; CRD). Records were independently screened by title and abstract by two reviewers and those deemed eligible were obtained for full text screening. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. We employed a narrative analysis and developed evidence gap maps.
Results UNASSIGNED
Twenty-four reviews were included with at least one for each sub-population and employing a range of digital interventions. The quality of evidence was limited with only one of the 24 of reviews overall judged as low RoB. Definitions of "digital intervention" greatly varied across systematic reviews with some reported interventions fitting into more than one category (i.e., an internet intervention could also be a mobile phone or computer intervention), however definitions as reported in the relevant reviews were used. No reviews reported cancer incidence or related outcomes. Available evidence was limited both by sub-population and type of intervention, but evidence was most pronounced in school-aged children. In school-aged children eHealth interventions, defined as school-based programmes delivered by the internet, computers, tablets, mobile technology, or tele-health methods, improved outcomes. Accelerometer-measured (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD] 0.33, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.61) and self-reported (SMD: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.23) PA increased, as did fruit and vegetable intake (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19) (review rated as low RoB, minimal to considerable heterogeneity across results). No difference was reported for consumption of fat post-intervention (SMD: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.03) or sugar sweetened beverages(SSB) and snack consumption combined post-intervention (SMD: -0.02, 95% CI:-0.10 to 0.06),or at the follow up (studies reported 2 weeks to 36 months follow-up) after the intervention (SMD:-0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.03) (review rated low ROB, minimal to substantial heterogeneity across results). Smartphone based interventions utilising Short Messaging Service (SMS), app or combined approaches also improved PA measured using objective and subjective methods (SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.77) when compared to controls, with increases in total PA [weighted mean difference (WMD) 32.35 min per day, 95% CI: 10.36 to 54.33] and in daily steps (WMD: 1,185, 95% CI: 303 to 2,068) (review rated as high RoB, moderate to substantial heterogeneity across results). For all results, interpretation has limitations in terms of RoB and presence of unexplained heterogeneity.
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
This review of reviews has identified limited evidence that suggests some potential for digital interventions to increase PA and, to lesser extent, improve nutrition in school-aged children. However, effects can be small and based on less robust evidence. The body of evidence is characterised by a considerable level of heterogeneity, unclear/overlapping populations and intervention definitions, and a low methodological quality of systematic reviews. The heterogeneity across studies is further complicated when the age (older vs. more recent), interactivity (feedback/survey vs. no/less feedback/surveys), and accessibility (type of device) of the digital intervention is considered. This underscores the difficulty in synthesising evidence in a field with rapidly evolving technology and the resulting challenges in recommending the use of digital technology in public health. There is an urgent need for further research using contemporary technology and appropriate methods.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37534029
doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1185586
pmc: PMC10393256
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

1185586

Informations de copyright

© 2023 McDermott, Noake, Wolff, Bauld, Espina, Foucaud, Steindorf, Thorat, Weijenberg, Schüz and Kleijnen.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

KM, CN, RW and JK, were employed by Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Arch Physiol Biochem. 2011 May;117(2):47-56
pubmed: 21158485
Compr Child Adolesc Nurs. 2020 Sep;43(3):171-202
pubmed: 31192698
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 18;17(1):
pubmed: 31861359
Front Digit Health. 2023 May 23;5:1178407
pubmed: 37288171
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Nov 23;4(4):e129
pubmed: 27881359
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Mar;69(2):88-112
pubmed: 30548482
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Apr 30;7(4):e8298
pubmed: 31038460
Public Health. 2017 Jul;148:140-148
pubmed: 28482322
J Adv Nurs. 2011 Feb;67(2):251-68
pubmed: 21198800
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Dec;120:77-91
pubmed: 30409348
Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2014 Aug 07;5:159-70
pubmed: 25177158
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Sep 17;6(9):e10799
pubmed: 30224335
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jan;99(1):17-35
pubmed: 26298219
Ann Behav Med. 2006 Jun;31(3):205-23
pubmed: 16700634
ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2009 Jul-Sep;32(3):222-40
pubmed: 19707091
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Feb 14;16(2):e40
pubmed: 24550083
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Feb 1;9(2):e22601
pubmed: 33522980
Lancet Digit Health. 2019 Sep;1(5):e206-e221
pubmed: 33323269
Appetite. 2018 Jun 1;125:333-344
pubmed: 29471069
Mol Oncol. 2021 Mar;15(3):790-800
pubmed: 32741068
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 14;17(12):
pubmed: 32545877
Cancer Epidemiol. 2015 Dec;39 Suppl 1:S1-10
pubmed: 26164654
J Obes. 2013;2013:438364
pubmed: 24319594
Nutrients. 2019 Oct 16;11(10):
pubmed: 31623260
J Pers Med. 2020 Mar 01;10(1):
pubmed: 32121555
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34
pubmed: 26092286
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Sep;104(9):2181-2188
pubmed: 33573915
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 May 05;4(2):e39
pubmed: 27150850
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020 Jan;30(1):4-12
pubmed: 31418915
J Pediatr. 2016 May;172:40-46.e5
pubmed: 26947570
Mol Oncol. 2019 Mar;13(3):528-534
pubmed: 30667152
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Apr 25;22(9):
pubmed: 33922898
Ann Behav Med. 2017 Apr;51(2):226-239
pubmed: 27757789
Int J Sports Med. 2020 Aug;41(9):561-573
pubmed: 32375184

Auteurs

Kevin T McDermott (KT)

Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom.

Caro Noake (C)

Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom.

Robert Wolff (R)

Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom.

Linda Bauld (L)

Usher Institute and SPECTRUM Consortium, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Carolina Espina (C)

Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.

Jérôme Foucaud (J)

Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Laboratoire Éducations et Pratiques de Santé (UR 3412), Bobigny, France.

Karen Steindorf (K)

Division of Physical Activity, Prevention and Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Mangesh A Thorat (MA)

Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom.
Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Matty P Weijenberg (MP)

Department of Epidemiology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Joachim Schüz (J)

Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.

Jos Kleijnen (J)

Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH