Cargando…

Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. STUDY SELECTION: The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Centra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Larsen, Rasmus Tolstrup, Wagner, Vibeke, Korfitsen, Christoffer Bruun, Keller, Camilla, Juhl, Carsten Bogh, Langberg, Henning, Christensen, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8791066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35082116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068047
_version_ 1784640141513457664
author Larsen, Rasmus Tolstrup
Wagner, Vibeke
Korfitsen, Christoffer Bruun
Keller, Camilla
Juhl, Carsten Bogh
Langberg, Henning
Christensen, Jan
author_facet Larsen, Rasmus Tolstrup
Wagner, Vibeke
Korfitsen, Christoffer Bruun
Keller, Camilla
Juhl, Carsten Bogh
Langberg, Henning
Christensen, Jan
author_sort Larsen, Rasmus Tolstrup
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. STUDY SELECTION: The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on 4 June 2021. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared interventions in which adults received feedback from PAMs with control interventions in which no feedback was provided. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date, or language were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The three primary outcomes of interest were physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, and sedentary time. RESULTS: 121 randomised controlled trials with 141 study comparisons, including 16 743 participants, were included. The PAM based interventions showed a moderate effect (standardised mean difference 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.55) on physical activity, equivalent to 1235 daily steps; a small effect (0.23, 0.16 to 0.30) on moderate to vigorous physical activity, equivalent to 48.5 weekly minutes; and a small insignificant effect (−0.12, −0.25 to 0.01) on sedentary time, equal to 9.9 daily minutes. All outcomes favoured the PAM interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of evidence was low for the effect of PAM based interventions on physical activity and moderate for moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time. PAM based interventions are safe and effectively increase physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity. The effect on physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity is well established but might be overestimated owing to publication bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018102719.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8791066
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87910662022-02-07 Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis Larsen, Rasmus Tolstrup Wagner, Vibeke Korfitsen, Christoffer Bruun Keller, Camilla Juhl, Carsten Bogh Langberg, Henning Christensen, Jan BMJ Research OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. STUDY SELECTION: The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on 4 June 2021. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared interventions in which adults received feedback from PAMs with control interventions in which no feedback was provided. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date, or language were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The three primary outcomes of interest were physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, and sedentary time. RESULTS: 121 randomised controlled trials with 141 study comparisons, including 16 743 participants, were included. The PAM based interventions showed a moderate effect (standardised mean difference 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.55) on physical activity, equivalent to 1235 daily steps; a small effect (0.23, 0.16 to 0.30) on moderate to vigorous physical activity, equivalent to 48.5 weekly minutes; and a small insignificant effect (−0.12, −0.25 to 0.01) on sedentary time, equal to 9.9 daily minutes. All outcomes favoured the PAM interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of evidence was low for the effect of PAM based interventions on physical activity and moderate for moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time. PAM based interventions are safe and effectively increase physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity. The effect on physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity is well established but might be overestimated owing to publication bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018102719. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2022-01-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8791066/ /pubmed/35082116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068047 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Larsen, Rasmus Tolstrup
Wagner, Vibeke
Korfitsen, Christoffer Bruun
Keller, Camilla
Juhl, Carsten Bogh
Langberg, Henning
Christensen, Jan
Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8791066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35082116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068047
work_keys_str_mv AT larsenrasmustolstrup effectivenessofphysicalactivitymonitorsinadultssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wagnervibeke effectivenessofphysicalactivitymonitorsinadultssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT korfitsenchristofferbruun effectivenessofphysicalactivitymonitorsinadultssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kellercamilla effectivenessofphysicalactivitymonitorsinadultssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT juhlcarstenbogh effectivenessofphysicalactivitymonitorsinadultssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT langberghenning effectivenessofphysicalactivitymonitorsinadultssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT christensenjan effectivenessofphysicalactivitymonitorsinadultssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis