E‐&mHealth interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and/or obesity among children: A scoping review of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood obesity is a public health concern. Electronic and mobile health (e-&mHealth) approaches can facilitate the delivery of interventions for obesity prevention and treatment. Synthesizing reviews of e-&mHealth interventions to improve weight and weight-related behaviors (physical activity, sedentary behavior, and diet) is useful to characterize the current scope of the literature and identify opportunities for future reviews and studies. Using a scoping review methodology, we aimed to evaluate the breadth and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of e-&mHealth interventions targeting weight and weight-related behaviors in children and adolescents aged <19 years. A systematic search of seven databases was conducted, including reviews published between 2000 and 2019. Review characteristics were extracted, and methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Forty-five systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. All reviews evaluated intervention efficacy (100%), but few assessed other aspects (20% in total) such as cost-effectiveness. Smartphone applications (47%), text messages (44%), and websites (35%) were the main modalities. Weight (60%), physical activity (51%), and diet (44%) were frequently assessed, unlike sedentary behavior (8%). Most reviews were rated as having critically low or low methodological quality (97%). Reviews that identify the effective active ingredients of interventions and explore metrics beyond efficacy are recommended.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".