Effectiveness of holistic mobile health interventions on diet, and physical, and mental health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Good physical and mental health are essential for healthy ageing. Holistic mobile health (mHealth) interventions-including at least three components: physical activity, diet, and mental health-could support both physical and mental health and be scaled to the population level. This review aims to describe the characteristics of holistic mHealth interventions and their effects on related behavioural and health outcomes among adults from the general population. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Google Scholar (first 200 records). The initial search covered January 1, 2011, to April 13, 2022, and an updated search extended from April 13, 2022 to August 30, 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) were included if they (i) were delivered via mHealth technologies, (ii) included content on physical activity, diet, and mental health, and (iii) targeted adults (≥18 years old) from the general population or those at risk of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) or mental disorders. Studies were excluded if they targeted pregnant women (due to distinct physiological responses), individuals with pre-existing NCDs or mental disorders (to emphasise prevention), or primarily utilised web, email, or structured phone support (to focus on mobile technologies without exclusive human support). Data (summary data from published reports) extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were completed by two reviewers using a standard template and Cochrane risk-of-bias tools, respectively. Narrative syntheses were conducted for all studies, and random-effects models were used in the meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effect of interventions for outcomes with comparable data in the RCTs. The study was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022315166. Findings: = 62.27%). All NRSIs were labelled as having a serious risk of bias overall; 56% (n = 14/25) of RCTs were classified as having some concerns, and the others as having a high risk of bias. Interpretation: Findings from identified studies suggest that holistic mHealth interventions may aid reductions in weight and in perceived stress levels, with small to medium effect sizes. The observed effects on diet quality scores and self-reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity were less clear and require more research. High-quality RCTs with longer follow-up durations are needed to provide more robust evidence. To promote population health, future research should focus on vulnerable populations and those in middle- and low-income countries. Optimal combinations of delivery modes and components to improve efficacy and sustain long-term effects should also be explored. Funding: National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore, under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) Programme and Physical Activity and Nutrition Determinants in Asia (PANDA) Research Programme.
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 | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".