Hakala Sanna, Rintala Aki, Immonen Jaakko, Karvanen Juha, Heinonen Ari, Sjögren Tuulikki
Department of Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
J Rehabil Med. 2017 Jan 31;49(2):97-105. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2195.
To determine the effectiveness of technology-based distance interventions for promoting physical activity, using systematic review and meta-analysis.
A literature search of studies published between 2000 and 2015 was conducted in the following databases: CENTRAL, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, OTseeker, WOS and PEDro. Studies were selected according to the PICOS framework, as follows: P (population): adults; I (intervention): technology-based distance intervention for promoting physical activity; C (comparison) similar distance intervention without technology, O (outcomes) physical activity; S (study design) randomized controlled trial. Physical activity outcomes were extracted and quality was assessed by 2 independent authors.
Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. The mean (standard deviation; range) me thodological quality score of the studies was 6 (1.3; 4-8). Technology-based distance interventions were not more or less effective than conventional treatment whether measured as steps/day (mean difference 1,657; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1,861 to 5,176, p = 0.18), physical activity min/week (mean difference 0.34; 95% CI -146.3 to 146.9, p = 0.92), or as overall physical activity (response ratio 1.1; 95% CI 0.8-1.4, p = 0.65). No associations between the intervention duration or study quality and physical activity outcomes were found. Data were statistically and clinically heterogeneous.
The effectiveness of technology-based distance interventions for promoting physical activity is similar to that of conventional treatment.
采用系统评价和荟萃分析来确定基于技术的远程干预对促进身体活动的有效性。
在以下数据库中检索2000年至2015年发表的研究：Cochrane系统评价数据库（CENTRAL）、荷兰医学文摘数据库（EMBASE）、Ovid MEDLINE、护理学与健康领域数据库（CINAHL）、心理学文摘数据库（PsycINFO）、职业疗法循证数据库（OTseeker）以及科学网（WOS）和循证医学数据库（PEDro）。根据以下PICOS框架选择研究：P（人群）：成年人；I（干预）：基于技术的促进身体活动的远程干预；C（对照）：无技术的类似远程干预；O（结局）：身体活动；S（研究设计）：随机对照试验。提取身体活动结局并由2名独立作者评估质量。
八项研究纳入荟萃分析。这些研究的平均（标准差；范围）方法学质量评分为6（1.3；4 - 8）。无论以每天步数（平均差值1657；95%置信区间（95%CI）-1861至5176，p = 0.18）、每周身体活动分钟数（平均差值0.34；95%CI -146.3至146.9，p = 0.92）还是总体身体活动（反应比1.1；95%CI 0.8 - 1.4，p = 0.65）来衡量，基于技术的远程干预并不比传统治疗更有效或更无效。未发现干预持续时间或研究质量与身体活动结局之间存在关联。数据在统计学和临床上均存在异质性。
基于技术的远程干预对促进身体活动的有效性与传统治疗相似。
