Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Reducing Behavioral Risks of Cardiovascular Disease in Nonclinical Adult Populations: Systematic Review of Reviews.
Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Reducing Behavioral Risks of Cardiovascular Disease in Nonclinical Adult Populations: Systematic Review of Reviews.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/19688
复制
发表时间：
2021-05-14
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Chadborn T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gold N;Yau A;Rigby B;Dyke C;Remfry EA;Chadborn T
数字健康干预越来越多地被用作面对面服务的补充或替代，作为预测性预防的一部分。他们可能会提供给那些谁是在高风险的心血管疾病，需要改善他们的饮食，增加体力活动，戒烟，或减少酒精消费。尽管这些干预措施很受欢迎，但没有对不同数字干预方式的有效性进行全面总结和比较，以告知政策。本综述旨在总结数字干预措施在改善非临床成人人群中与体力活动、吸烟、饮酒或饮食相关的行为和健康结果方面的有效性，并确定不同数字干预方式的有效性。我们回顾了2009年1月1日至2019年2月25日期间以英语发表的文章，这些文章对任何研究设计进行了系统性综述，并对数字干预有效性进行了叙述性综合或荟萃分析;与成人相关的数据（≥18岁）;以及与饮食、体力活动、吸烟或酒精（单独或任何组合）相关的行为或健康结果数据。任何时间范围或参照物均被视为合格。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、科克伦综述和灰色文献。AMSTAR-2工具被用来评估审查的信心评级。我们发现92篇综述来自学术文献（47篇有荟萃分析）和2篇灰色文献（1篇有荟萃分析）。数字干预通常比没有干预更有效，但效果很小。与面对面干预相比，数字干预的有效性证据好坏参半。大多数试验报告，意向治疗分析和损耗率往往很高。长期随访的研究很少。然而，我们发现，数字干预可能在干预结束后长达6个月的时间内有效，但效果在12个月内消失。数字干预措施对戒烟和减少饮酒的积极影响很小;饮食和身体活动相结合的干预措施可能有效;仅针对身体活动的干预措施没有有效性，除了通过移动的电话提供干预措施时，其具有中等影响;观察到仅针对饮食的干预措施没有有效性。移动的干预措施特别有效。基于互联网的干预措施总体上是有效的。数字干预措施对吸烟、饮酒以及针对饮食和体育活动的干预措施的积极影响很小。小的影响可能是由于治疗的低疗效或由于不依从。此外，我们从我们综述的文献中进行推断的能力有限，因为这些干预措施是异质性的，许多综述的AMSTAR-2评级极低，分析通常是意向治疗，随访时间相对较短。PROSPERO国际系统性综述前瞻性登记中心CRD 42019126074; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php? RecordID=126074。
Digital health interventions are increasingly being used as a supplement or replacement for face-to-face services as a part of predictive prevention. They may be offered to those who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease and need to improve their diet, increase physical activity, stop smoking, or reduce alcohol consumption. Despite the popularity of these interventions, there is no overall summary and comparison of the effectiveness of different modes of delivery of a digital intervention to inform policy. This review aims to summarize the effectiveness of digital interventions in improving behavioral and health outcomes related to physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, or diet in nonclinical adult populations and to identify the effectiveness of different modes of delivery of digital interventions. We reviewed articles published in the English language between January 1, 2009, and February 25, 2019, that presented a systematic review with a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis of any study design examining digital intervention effectiveness; data related to adults (≥18 years) in high-income countries; and data on behavioral or health outcomes related to diet, physical activity, smoking, or alcohol, alone or in any combination. Any time frame or comparator was considered eligible. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and gray literature. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess review confidence ratings. We found 92 reviews from the academic literature (47 with meta-analyses) and 2 gray literature items (1 with a meta-analysis). Digital interventions were typically more effective than no intervention, but the effect sizes were small. Evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions compared with face-to-face interventions was mixed. Most trials reported that intent-to-treat analysis and attrition rates were often high. Studies with long follow-up periods were scarce. However, we found that digital interventions may be effective for up to 6 months after the end of the intervention but that the effects dissipated by 12 months. There were small positive effects of digital interventions on smoking cessation and alcohol reduction; possible effectiveness in combined diet and physical activity interventions; no effectiveness for interventions targeting physical activity alone, except for when interventions were delivered by mobile phone, which had medium-sized effects; and no effectiveness observed for interventions targeting diet alone. Mobile interventions were particularly effective. Internet-based interventions were generally effective. Digital interventions have small positive effects on smoking, alcohol consumption, and in interventions that target a combination of diet and physical activity. Small effects may have been due to the low efficacy of treatment or due to nonadherence. In addition, our ability to make inferences from the literature we reviewed was limited as those interventions were heterogeneous, many reviews had critically low AMSTAR-2 ratings, analysis was typically intent-to-treat, and follow-up times were relatively short. PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019126074; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=126074.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Bassi, Nikhil;Karagodin, Ilya;Stone, Neil J.
通讯作者：
Stone, Neil J.
DOI：
10.1111/obr.12006
发表时间：
2013-04
期刊：
Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bacigalupo R;Cudd P;Littlewood C;Bissell P;Hawley MS;Buckley Woods H
通讯作者：
Buckley Woods H
影响因子：
--
作者：
Burke LE;Wang J;Sevick MA
通讯作者：
Sevick MA
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Afshin, Ashkan;Babalola, Damilola;Mozaffarian, Dariush
通讯作者：
Mozaffarian, Dariush
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Coons, Michael J;Demott, Andrew;Buscemi, Joanna;Duncan, Jennifer M;Pellegrini, Christine A;Steglitz, Jeremy;Pictor, Alexander;Spring, Bonnie
通讯作者：
Spring, Bonnie