Face‐to‐face versus remote and web 2.0 interventions for promoting physical activity

Richards, J et al (2013)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - 10.1002/14651858.CD010393.pub2.

Ewch i'r cyhoeddiad

Mapiau Tystiolaeth

• Lleoliadau Gofal: Lleoliad cymunedol
• Grwpiau Poblogaeth: Oedolion
• Ymyriadau: Rhaglenni ymarfer corff
• Ymyriadau: Ymyriadau newid ymddygiad
• Ymyriadau: Ymyriadau gweithgaredd corfforol aml-gydran
• Ymyriadau: Ymyriadau Digidol
• Ymyriadau: Ymyriadau addysgol
• Canlyniad: Newid mewn gweithgaredd corfforol

Math o Dystiolaeth

Adolygiad Systematig

Nodau

Dywed yr awduron:  

"This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of face‐to‐face versus remote and web 2.0 interventions for Physical Activity (PA) promotion in community dwelling adults (aged 16 years and above)."

Canfyddiadau

Dywed yr awduron: 

"One study recruiting 225 apparently healthy adults met the inclusion criteria. This study took place in a high‐income country. From 27,299 hits, the full texts of 193 papers were retrieved for examination against the inclusion criteria. However, there was only one paper that met the inclusion criteria. This study reported the effect of a PA intervention on cardio‐respiratory fitness. There were no reported data for PA, quality of life, or cost effectiveness. The difference between the remote and web 2.0 versus face‐to‐face arms was not significant (SMD ‐0.02; 95% CI ‐0.30 to 0.26; high quality evidence). The risk of bias in the included study was assessed as low, and there was no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events."

Casgliadau

Dywed yr awduron: "There is insufficient evidence to assess whether face‐to‐face interventions or remote and web 2.0 approaches are more effective at promoting PA."