eHealth interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior, or obesity in adults: A scoping review of systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vast body of evidence regarding eHealth interventions for nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and obesity exists. This scoping review of systematic reviews aimed to evaluate the current level of evidence in this growing field. Seven electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews published until October 27, 2019. The systematic reviews must have included adult participants only and have evaluated eHealth behavioral interventions with the primary aim of changing nutrition, physical activity, and sedentary behavior or treating or preventing overweight and obesity. One hundred and six systematic reviews, published from 2006 to 2019, were included. Almost all (n = 98) reviews evaluated the efficacy of interventions. Over half (n = 61) included interventions focused on physical activity, followed by treatment of obesity (n = 28), nutrition (n = 22), prevention of obesity (n = 18), and sedentary behavior (n = 6). Many reviews (n = 46) evaluated one type of eHealth intervention only, while 60 included two or more types. Most reviews (n = 67) were rated as being of critically low methodological quality. This scoping review identified an increasing volume of systematic reviews evaluating eHealth interventions. It highlights several evidence gaps (e.g., evaluation of other outcomes, such as reach, engagement, or cost effectiveness), guiding future research efforts in this area.
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 | 0.028 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".