2022
DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/cq24y
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is the uptake, engagement and effectiveness of exclusively mobile interventions for the promotion of weight-related behaviours equal for all? A systematic review

Abstract: Mobile health interventions are promising behaviour change tools. However, there is a concern that they may widen inequalities in health. This systematic review investigated differences in uptake of, engagement with, and effectiveness of mobile interventions for diet, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour based on a range of inequality indicators. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020192473). Six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Pubmed, Web of Science) were searched. Publications… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The reason behind this stratification is that socio-economic level is a major determinant for food choices and individual dietary carbon footprint [26,27]. Additionally, deprived populations might also benefit less from interventions delivered via digital or mobile means; it is thus necessary to include social inequality indicators such as socio-economic status in the evaluation of interventions to assess their potential differential impact [28,29]. We chose a subjective measure of the socio-economical level and status because it has been shown that socioeconomic status has an impact on how resources are perceived by individuals beyond their factual resources [30].…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The reason behind this stratification is that socio-economic level is a major determinant for food choices and individual dietary carbon footprint [26,27]. Additionally, deprived populations might also benefit less from interventions delivered via digital or mobile means; it is thus necessary to include social inequality indicators such as socio-economic status in the evaluation of interventions to assess their potential differential impact [28,29]. We chose a subjective measure of the socio-economical level and status because it has been shown that socioeconomic status has an impact on how resources are perceived by individuals beyond their factual resources [30].…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 point: 0 serv/w 0 point: >2 serv/w (or >0 29. serv/d) Those foods should be consumed as less as possible, ideally avoided or at least no more than once a week (Monteiro et al 2019).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%