Cited by 193Physical Activity and HealthMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

The effects of step-count monitoring interventions on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based randomised controlled trials in adults

Open access
Chaudhry, Umar A. R., Wahlich, Charlotte, Fortescue, Rebecca, Cook, Derek G., Knightly, Rachel, Harris, Tess·2020·International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Step-count monitors (pedometers, body-worn trackers and smartphone applications) can increase walking, helping to tackle physical inactivity. We aimed to assess the effect of step-count monitors on physical activity (PA) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) amongst community-dwelling adults; including longer-term effects, differences between step-count monitors, and between intervention components. METHODS: Systematic literature searches in seven databases identified RCTs in healthy adults, or those at risk of disease, published between January 2000-April 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcome was mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in steps at follow-up between treatment and control groups. Our preferred outcome measure was from studies with follow-up steps adjusted for baseline steps (change studies); but we also included studies reporting follow-up differences only (end-point studies). Multivariate-meta-analysis used random-effect estimates at different time-points for change studies only. Meta-regression compared effects of different step-count monitors and intervention components amongst all studies at ≤4 months. RESULTS: Of 12,491 records identified, 70 RCTs (at generally low risk of bias) were included, with 57 trials (16,355 participants) included in meta-analyses: 32 provided change from baseline data; 25 provided end-point only. Multivariate meta-analysis of the 32 change studies demonstrated step-counts favoured intervention groups: MD of 1126 steps/day 95%CI [787, 1466] at ≤4 months, 1050 steps/day [602, 1498] at 6 months, 464 steps/day [301, 626] at 1 year, 121 steps/day [- 64, 306] at 2 years and 434 steps/day [191, 676] at 3-4 years. Meta-regression of the 57 trials at ≤4 months demonstrated in mutually-adjusted analyses that: end-point were similar to change studies (+ 257 steps/day [- 417, 931]); body-worn trackers/smartphone applications were less effective than pedometers (- 834 steps/day [- 1542, - 126]); and interventions providing additional counselling/incentives were not better than those without (- 812 steps/day [- 1503, - 122]). CONCLUSIONS: Step-count monitoring leads to short and long-term step-count increases, with no evidence that either body-worn trackers/smartphone applications, or additional counselling/incentives offer further benefit over simpler pedometer-based interventions. Simple step-count monitoring interventions should be prioritised to address the public health physical inactivity challenge. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42017075810 .

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 · 10.1186/s12966-020-01020-8

Cites

104 of 104 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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. In., Version 5.3 edn. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chaudhry, U. A. R., Wahlich, C., Fortescue, R., Cook, D. G., Knightly, R., & Harris, T.
Affiliations
St George's, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Chaudhry, Umar A. R.
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Published
2020-10-09
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
129-129
ISSN
1479-5868 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3092000252
Cited by
193
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
step count monitoring, pedometers, mobile application, physical activity, walking, physical inactivity, community-dwelling adults, step count, counseling, incentives, intervention components, long-term effects, physical activity interventions, physical activity counseling
MeSH terms
Fitness Trackers, Wearable Electronic Devices, Humans, Exercise, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Walking, Independent Living

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