Cited by 60Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsPhysical Activity and HealthDigital Mental Health Interventions

eHealth interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior, or obesity in adults: a scoping review of systematic reviews

Open access
Hutchesson, Melinda J., Gough, Claire, Müller, Andre Matthias, Short, Camille E., Whatnall, Megan C., Ahmed, Mavra, Pearson, Nicole, Yin, Zenong +6 more·2021·Obesity Reviews

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.13295

Cites

158 of 158 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hutchesson, MJ;Gough, C;Muller, AM;Short, CE;Whatnall, MC;Ahmed, M;Pearson, N;Yin, Z;Ashton, LM;Maher, C;Staiano, AE;Mauch, CE;DeSmet, A;Vandelanotte, C Title: eHealth interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior, or obesity in adults: A scoping review of systematic reviews Date: 2021-10 Citation:
  2. Hutchesson, M. J., Gough, C., Muller, A. M., Short, C. E., Whatnall, M. C., Ahmed, M., Pearson, N., Yin, Z., Ashton, L. M., Maher, C., Staiano, A. E., Mauch, C. E., DeSmet, A. & Vandelanotte, C. (2021). eHealth interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior, or obesity in adults: A scoping review of systematic reviews. OBESITY REVIEWS, 22 (10), https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13295. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/298673

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hutchesson, M. J., Gough, C., Müller, A. M., Short, C. E., Whatnall, M. C., Ahmed, M., Pearson, N., Yin, Z., Ashton, L. M., Maher, C., Staiano, A. E., Mauch, C. E., DeSmet, A., & Vandelanotte, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
  • Central Queensland University (AU)
Corresponding author
Hutchesson, Melinda J.
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-06-23
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
e13295-e13295
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
OpenAlex
W3174890819
Cited by
60
References
158
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Singapore Population Health Improvement Centre (NMRC/CG/C026/2017_NUHS)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
digital health interventions, digital health, nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior, obesity, overweight prevention, behavioral interventions, adults, methodological quality of systematic reviews, evidence gaps, cost-effectiveness, engagement
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Adult, Humans, Obesity, Exercise, Telemedicine, Sedentary Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review