Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Child, Family and Population Health Nursing, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, Washington, USA.
BMJ Open. 2023 Aug 3;13(8):e069374. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069374.
Technological advancements that use global positioning system (GPS), such as geofencing, provide the opportunity to examine place-based context in population health research. This review aimed to systematically identify, assess and synthesise the existing evidence on geofencing intervention design, acceptability, feasibility and/or impact.
Scoping review, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance for reporting.
PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane and PsycINFO for articles in English published up to 31 December 2021.
Articles were included if geofencing was used as a mechanism for intervention delivery.
(1) a component or combination of GPS, geographical information system or ecological momentary assessment was used without delivery of an intervention; (2) did not include a health or health-related outcome from the geofencing intervention; or (3) was not a peer-reviewed study.
Several researchers independently reviewed all abstracts and full-text articles for final inclusion.
A total of 2171 articles were found; after exclusions, nine studies were included in the review. The majority were published in 5 years preceding the search (89%). Geofences in most studies (n=5) were fixed and programmed in the mobile application carried by participants without their input. Mechanisms of geofencing interventions were classified as direct or indirect, with five studies (56%) using direct interventions. There were several different health outcomes (from smoking to problematic alcohol use) across the five studies that used a direct geofencing intervention.
This scoping review found geofencing to be an emerging technology that is an acceptable and feasible intervention applied to several different populations and health outcomes. Future studies should specify the rationale for the locations that are geofenced and user input. Moreover, attention to mechanisms of actions will enable scientists to understand not only whether geofencing is an appropriate and effective intervention but why it works to achieve the outcomes observed.
利用全球定位系统（GPS）等技术进步，如地理围栏，为研究人口健康提供了检验基于地点的背景的机会。本综述旨在系统地识别、评估和综合现有的地理围栏干预设计、可接受性、可行性和/或影响的证据。
使用系统评价和荟萃分析扩展的首选报告项目对范围综述进行综述，以报告指南。
截至 2021 年 12 月 31 日，在英语发表的文章中，使用 PubMed、CINAHL、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane 和 PsycINFO 进行搜索。
如果地理围栏被用作干预传递的机制，则纳入文章。
(1) 使用 GPS、地理信息系统或生态瞬间评估的一个或多个组件或组合，但未提供干预措施；(2) 不包括地理围栏干预的健康或与健康相关的结果；或 (3) 不是同行评议的研究。
几名研究人员独立审查了所有摘要和全文文章，以确定最终纳入的文章。
共发现 2171 篇文章；排除后，共有 9 项研究纳入综述。大多数研究（n=5）的研究结果发表在搜索前 5 年，占 89%。大多数研究中的地理围栏（n=5）是固定的，并由参与者携带的移动应用程序编程，无需他们的输入。地理围栏干预的机制被分类为直接或间接，其中五项研究（56%）使用直接干预。五项使用直接地理围栏干预的研究有几个不同的健康结果（从吸烟到有问题的酒精使用）。
本范围综述发现，地理围栏是一种新兴技术，它是一种可接受和可行的干预措施，适用于多个不同的人群和健康结果。未来的研究应具体说明地理围栏的位置的基本原理和用户输入。此外，对作用机制的关注将使科学家不仅能够理解地理围栏是否是一种适当和有效的干预措施，而且能够理解为什么它能够实现所观察到的结果。
