Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland -
Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017 Dec;53(6):953-967. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04585-3. Epub 2017 May 2.
Technology has been thought to have strong potential for promoting physical activity, but the evidence has remained unclear. The aim of this study was to examine whether a technology-based distance intervention promoting physical activity is more effective than a physical activity intervention without the use of technology. This systematic review is registered in Prospero (CRD42016035831).
A systematic literature search of studies published between January 2000 to December 2015 was conducted in CENTRAL, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, OT-Seeker, WOS and PEDro. Studies were selected by two independent authors applying the following PICOS criteria P) adults, I) technology-based distance intervention promoting physical activity, C) distance intervention promoting physical activity without technology, O) physical activity, S) RCT. Quality was assessed following the guidelines of Cochrane Back Review Group. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed using R.
From 3 031 studies, 23 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4 645 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The quality of the studies was moderate (mean 6 out of the maximum 12, with range of 4-9). Technology-based interventions were 12% more effective than similar or minimal control interventions in increasing physical activity (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.25, P=0.03). Compared to minimal control interventions, technology-based interventions were 19% more effective (RR: 1.19; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35, P=0.0096). In the interventions targeting patients, use of technology was 25% more effective than non-use (P=0.027). No differences were observed in physical activity between the effectiveness of interactive, non-interactive and self-monitoring technologies. Study quality, intervention duration and whether the measures used were subjective or objective were not significantly related to the amount of physical activity engaged in.
Technology-based delivery of interventions seems to be more effective than usual care in promoting physical activity, particularly in the interventions targeting patients. Future research should investigate the cost-effectiveness of the use of distance technology for this purpose. Technology benefits rehabilitation, and can be considered for use in clinical practice, may adequately replace face-to-face meetings and stimulate more intensive rehabilitation in daily life.
人们认为技术在促进身体活动方面具有巨大潜力，但证据仍不明确。本研究旨在检验促进身体活动的基于技术的远程干预是否比不使用技术的身体活动干预更有效。本系统评价已在 Prospero（CRD42016035831）中注册。
对 2000 年 1 月至 2015 年 12 月发表的研究进行了系统的文献检索，检索范围包括 CENTRAL、EMBASE、Ovid MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、OT-Seeker、WOS 和 PEDro。两名独立作者根据以下 PICOS 标准选择研究：P）成年人，I）基于技术的远程干预促进身体活动，C）促进身体活动的无技术远程干预，O）身体活动，S）RCT。根据 Cochrane 回溯小组的指南评估质量。使用 R 进行了荟萃分析和荟萃回归。
从 3031 项研究中，共有 23 项随机对照试验（共 4645 名参与者）纳入荟萃分析。研究质量为中等（平均 12 分中的 6 分，范围为 4-9 分）。与类似或最低对照组相比，基于技术的干预措施在增加身体活动方面的效果高出 12%（RR：1.12；95%CI：1.01 至 1.25，P=0.03）。与最低对照组相比，基于技术的干预措施的效果高出 19%（RR：1.19；95%CI：1.05 至 1.35，P=0.0096）。在针对患者的干预措施中，使用技术比不使用技术的效果高出 25%（P=0.027）。在交互、非交互和自我监测技术的有效性方面，身体活动没有差异。研究质量、干预持续时间以及所使用的措施是主观还是客观与参与的身体活动量均无显著关系。
与常规护理相比，基于技术的干预措施在促进身体活动方面似乎更有效，特别是针对患者的干预措施。未来的研究应调查为此目的使用远程技术的成本效益。技术有益于康复，可以考虑在临床实践中使用，它可以替代面对面的会议，并在日常生活中刺激更密集的康复。
