Social media interventions for diet and exercise behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the use of social media to promote healthy diet and exercise in the general population. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ERIC, PubMed, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Alt Health Watch, Health Source, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Web of Knowledge and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis (2000-2013). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs of social media interventions promoting healthy diet and exercise behaviours in the general population were eligible. Interventions using social media, alone or as part of a complex intervention, were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We describe the studies according to the target populations, objectives and nature of interventions, outcomes examined, and results and conclusions. We extracted data on the primary and secondary outcomes examined in each study. Where the same outcome was assessed in at least three studies, we combined data in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: 22 studies were included. Participants were typically middle-aged Caucasian women of mid-to-high socioeconomic status. There were a variety of interventions, comparison groups and outcomes. All studies showed a decrease in programme usage throughout the intervention period. Overall, no significant differences were found for primary outcomes which varied across studies. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences in changes in physical activity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.13 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.30), 12 studies) and weight (SMD -0.00 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.19), 10 studies); however, pooled results from five studies showed a significant decrease in dietary fat consumption with social media (SMD -0.35 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.02)). CONCLUSIONS: Social media may provide certain advantages for public health interventions; however, studies of social media interventions to date relating to healthy lifestyles tend to show low levels of participation and do not show significant differences between groups in key outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".