对于促进体重相关行为的专门移动干预的吸收、参与和有效性是否对所有人都是平等的?系统回顾

IF 8 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Obesity Reviews Pub Date : 2023-01-09 DOI:10.1111/obr.13542
Dorothy Szinay, Cynthia C. Forbes, Heide Busse, Ann DeSmet, Eline S. Smit, Laura M. K?nig
{"title":"对于促进体重相关行为的专门移动干预的吸收、参与和有效性是否对所有人都是平等的?系统回顾","authors":"Dorothy Szinay,&nbsp;Cynthia C. Forbes,&nbsp;Heide Busse,&nbsp;Ann DeSmet,&nbsp;Eline S. Smit,&nbsp;Laura M. K?nig","doi":"10.1111/obr.13542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mobile health interventions are promising behavior change tools. However, there is a concern that they may benefit some populations less than others and thus widen inequalities in health. This systematic review investigated differences in uptake of, engagement with, and effectiveness of mobile interventions for weight-related behaviors (i.e., diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior) based on a range of inequality indicators including age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020192473). Six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Pubmed, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to July 2021. Publications were eligible for inclusion if they reported the results of an exclusively mobile intervention and examined outcomes by at least one inequality indicator. Sixteen publications reporting on 13 studies were included with most reporting on multiple behaviors and inequality indicators. Uptake was investigated in one study with no differences reported by the inequality indicators studied. Studies investigating engagement (<i>n</i> = 7) reported differences by age (<i>n</i> = 1), gender (<i>n</i> = 3), ethnicity (<i>n</i> = 2), and education (<i>n</i> = 2), while those investigating effectiveness (<i>n</i> = 9) reported differences by age (<i>n</i> = 3), gender (<i>n</i> = 5), education (<i>n</i> = 2), occupation (<i>n</i> = 1), and geographical location (<i>n</i> = 1). Given the limited number of studies and their inconsistent findings, evidence of the presence of a digital divide in mobile interventions targeting weight-related behaviors is inconclusive. Therefore, we recommend that inequality indicators are specifically addressed, analyzed, and reported when evaluating mobile interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":216,"journal":{"name":"Obesity Reviews","volume":"24 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/obr.13542","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the uptake, engagement, and effectiveness of exclusively mobile interventions for the promotion of weight-related behaviors equal for all? A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Dorothy Szinay,&nbsp;Cynthia C. Forbes,&nbsp;Heide Busse,&nbsp;Ann DeSmet,&nbsp;Eline S. Smit,&nbsp;Laura M. K?nig\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/obr.13542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Mobile health interventions are promising behavior change tools. However, there is a concern that they may benefit some populations less than others and thus widen inequalities in health. This systematic review investigated differences in uptake of, engagement with, and effectiveness of mobile interventions for weight-related behaviors (i.e., diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior) based on a range of inequality indicators including age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020192473). Six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Pubmed, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to July 2021. Publications were eligible for inclusion if they reported the results of an exclusively mobile intervention and examined outcomes by at least one inequality indicator. Sixteen publications reporting on 13 studies were included with most reporting on multiple behaviors and inequality indicators. Uptake was investigated in one study with no differences reported by the inequality indicators studied. Studies investigating engagement (<i>n</i> = 7) reported differences by age (<i>n</i> = 1), gender (<i>n</i> = 3), ethnicity (<i>n</i> = 2), and education (<i>n</i> = 2), while those investigating effectiveness (<i>n</i> = 9) reported differences by age (<i>n</i> = 3), gender (<i>n</i> = 5), education (<i>n</i> = 2), occupation (<i>n</i> = 1), and geographical location (<i>n</i> = 1). Given the limited number of studies and their inconsistent findings, evidence of the presence of a digital divide in mobile interventions targeting weight-related behaviors is inconclusive. Therefore, we recommend that inequality indicators are specifically addressed, analyzed, and reported when evaluating mobile interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":216,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Obesity Reviews\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/obr.13542\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Obesity Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.13542\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obesity Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.13542","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

移动卫生干预措施是有希望改变行为的工具。然而,令人关切的是,它们可能使某些人口受益不及其他人口,从而扩大了健康方面的不平等。本系统综述调查了基于年龄、性别、种族/民族和社会经济地位等一系列不平等指标的体重相关行为(即饮食、身体活动和久坐行为)的移动干预在吸收、参与和有效性方面的差异。协议在PROSPERO上注册(CRD42020192473)。六个数据库(CINAHL, EMBASE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Pubmed和Web of Science)从成立到2021年7月进行了检索。如果出版物报告了专门的移动干预的结果,并通过至少一个不平等指标检查了结果,则有资格纳入。报告了13项研究的16份出版物被纳入了大多数关于多种行为和不平等指标的报告。一项研究调查了摄取情况,所研究的不平等指标没有报告差异。调查敬业度(n = 7)的研究报告了年龄(n = 1)、性别(n = 3)、种族(n = 2)和教育程度(n = 2)的差异,而调查有效性(n = 9)的研究报告了年龄(n = 3)、性别(n = 5)、教育(n = 2)、职业(n = 1)和地理位置(n = 1)的差异。鉴于研究数量有限且结果不一致,针对体重相关行为的移动干预存在数字鸿沟的证据尚无定论。因此,我们建议在评估移动干预措施时,具体处理、分析和报告不平等指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is the uptake, engagement, and effectiveness of exclusively mobile interventions for the promotion of weight-related behaviors equal for all? A systematic review

Mobile health interventions are promising behavior change tools. However, there is a concern that they may benefit some populations less than others and thus widen inequalities in health. This systematic review investigated differences in uptake of, engagement with, and effectiveness of mobile interventions for weight-related behaviors (i.e., diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior) based on a range of inequality indicators including age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020192473). Six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Pubmed, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to July 2021. Publications were eligible for inclusion if they reported the results of an exclusively mobile intervention and examined outcomes by at least one inequality indicator. Sixteen publications reporting on 13 studies were included with most reporting on multiple behaviors and inequality indicators. Uptake was investigated in one study with no differences reported by the inequality indicators studied. Studies investigating engagement (n = 7) reported differences by age (n = 1), gender (n = 3), ethnicity (n = 2), and education (n = 2), while those investigating effectiveness (n = 9) reported differences by age (n = 3), gender (n = 5), education (n = 2), occupation (n = 1), and geographical location (n = 1). Given the limited number of studies and their inconsistent findings, evidence of the presence of a digital divide in mobile interventions targeting weight-related behaviors is inconclusive. Therefore, we recommend that inequality indicators are specifically addressed, analyzed, and reported when evaluating mobile interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Obesity Reviews
Obesity Reviews 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
19.30
自引率
1.10%
发文量
130
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Obesity Reviews is a monthly journal publishing reviews on all disciplines related to obesity and its comorbidities. This includes basic and behavioral sciences, clinical treatment and outcomes, epidemiology, prevention and public health. The journal should, therefore, appeal to all professionals with an interest in obesity and its comorbidities. Review types may include systematic narrative reviews, quantitative meta-analyses and narrative reviews but all must offer new insights, critical or novel perspectives that will enhance the state of knowledge in the field. The editorial policy is to publish high quality peer-reviewed manuscripts that provide needed new insight into all aspects of obesity and its related comorbidities while minimizing the period between submission and publication.
期刊最新文献
Trends in adherence to physical activity guidelines from 1997 to 2018 among adults with obesity: An analysis from the US National Health Interview Survey. Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic bariatric surgery in patients of 70 years and older: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Valuing behavioral interventions for obesity reduction: A scoping review of economic models. Treating metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: The fat-trimming FGF21 approach. Recommender systems use in weight management mHealth interventions: A scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1