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.

Go to publication

Evidence Categories

• Care setting: Community setting
• Population group: Adults
• Intervention: Exercise programmes
• Intervention: Behaviour Change Interventions
• Intervention: Multicomponent physical activity interventions
• Intervention: Digital Interventions
• Intervention: Education Interventions
• Outcome: Change in physical activity

Type of Evidence

Systematic Review

Aims

The authors state:

"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)."

Findings

The authors state:

"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."

Conclusions

The authors state:

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