This review aimed to identify, evaluate, and synthesize the scientific literature on mobile health (mHealth) interventions to promote physical activity (PA) or reduce sedentary behavior (SB) in cancer survivors. We searched six databases from 2000 to 13 April 2020 for controlled and non-controlled trials published in any language. We conducted best evidence syntheses on controlled trials to assess the strength of the evidence. All 31 interventions included in this review measured PA outcomes, with 10 of them also evaluating SB outcomes. Most study participants were adults/older adults with various cancer types. The majority (n = 25) of studies implemented multicomponent interventions, with activity trackers being the most commonly used mHealth technology. There is strong evidence for mHealth interventions, including personal contact components, in increasing moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA among cancer survivors. However, there is inconclusive evidence to support mHealth interventions in increasing total activity and step counts. There is inconclusive evidence on SB potentially due to the limited number of studies. mHealth interventions that include personal contact components are likely more effective in increasing PA than mHealth interventions without such components. Future research should address social factors in mHealth interventions for PA and SB in cancer survivors.

Background Poor mental health among university students remains a pressing public health issue. Over the past few years, digital health interventions have been developed and considered promising in increasing psychological wellbeing among university students. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to synthesize evidence on digital health interventions targeting university students and to evaluate their effectiveness. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in April 2021 searching PubMed, Psychology and Behavioural Science Collection, Web of Science, ERIC, and Scopus for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on digital mental health interventions targeting university students. The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO [CRD42021234773]. Results The initital literature search resulted in 806 records of which seven remained after duplicates were removed and evaluated against the inclusion criteria. Effectiveness was reported and categorized into the following six delivery types: (a) web-based, online/computer-delivered interventions (b) computer-based Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT), (c) mobile applications and short message service (d) virtual reality interventions (e) skills training (f) relaxation and exposure-based therapy. Results indicated web-based online/computer delivered-interventions were effective or at least partially effective at decressing depression, anxiety, stress and eating disorder symptoms. This was similar for skills-training interventions, CBT-based intervention and mobile applications. However, digital mental health interventions using virtual reality and relaxation, exposure-based therapy was inconclusive. Due to the variation in study settings and inconsistencies in reporting, effectiveness was greatly dependent on the delivery format, targeted mental health problem and targeted purpose group. Conclusion The findings provide evidence for the beneficial effect of digital mental health interventions for university students. However, this review calls for a more systematic approach in testing and reporting the effectiveness of digital mental health interventions.