The effectiveness of co-created lifestyle interventions in improving health behaviour, physical and mental health in adults with non-communicable diseases: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of co-created lifestyle interventions in modifying health behaviour, and mental/physical health outcomes in individuals with non-communicable diseases (NCDs). STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of Randomized Control Trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic search of nine databases from inception until March 2023 was performed, plus weekly email alerts of new literature until March 2025. Studies comparing co-created lifestyle interventions with any control were included. Meta-analysis using the random effects model was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane-RoB-2, and quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE system. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (2201 participants; 74.2 % female; mean 53.8 years) were included. Meta-analysis showed that at <6 months, there is moderate quality evidence that co-created lifestyle interventions significantly improve health behaviour (moderate effect; SMD = 0.49, 95 %CI: 0.33-0.65) and physical health (small effect; SMD = 0.21, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.34), and mental health (small effect; SMD = 0.29, 95 %CI: 0.14-0.43), in individuals with NCDs. At ≥6 months, there is moderate quality evidence that co-created interventions improve health behaviour (small effect; SMD = 0.21, 95 %CI: 0.07-0.35), and mental health (small effect; SMD = 0.19, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.26). A small effect with low quality evidence (SMD = 0.11, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.32) was also observed for physical health, however, it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that co-created lifestyle interventions for secondary prevention of NCDs have a significant positive impact on the target health behaviour, and on mental health, and physical health 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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".