Cited by 56Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Reducing Behavioral Risks of Cardiovascular Disease in Nonclinical Adult Populations: Systematic Review of Reviews

Open access
Gold, Natalie, Yau, Amy, Rigby, Benjamin, Dyke, Chris, Remfry, Elizabeth Alice, Chadborn, Tim·2021·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Digital health interventions are increasingly being used as a supplement or replacement for face-to-face services as a part of predictive prevention. They may be offered to those who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease and need to improve their diet, increase physical activity, stop smoking, or reduce alcohol consumption. Despite the popularity of these interventions, there is no overall summary and comparison of the effectiveness of different modes of delivery of a digital intervention to inform policy. Objective: This review aims to summarize the effectiveness of digital interventions in improving behavioral and health outcomes related to physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, or diet in nonclinical adult populations and to identify the effectiveness of different modes of delivery of digital interventions. Methods: We reviewed articles published in the English language between January 1, 2009, and February 25, 2019, that presented a systematic review with a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis of any study design examining digital intervention effectiveness; data related to adults (≥18 years) in high-income countries; and data on behavioral or health outcomes related to diet, physical activity, smoking, or alcohol, alone or in any combination. Any time frame or comparator was considered eligible. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and gray literature. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess review confidence ratings. Results: We found 92 reviews from the academic literature (47 with meta-analyses) and 2 gray literature items (1 with a meta-analysis). Digital interventions were typically more effective than no intervention, but the effect sizes were small. Evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions compared with face-to-face interventions was mixed. Most trials reported that intent-to-treat analysis and attrition rates were often high. Studies with long follow-up periods were scarce. However, we found that digital interventions may be effective for up to 6 months after the end of the intervention but that the effects dissipated by 12 months. There were small positive effects of digital interventions on smoking cessation and alcohol reduction; possible effectiveness in combined diet and physical activity interventions; no effectiveness for interventions targeting physical activity alone, except for when interventions were delivered by mobile phone, which had medium-sized effects; and no effectiveness observed for interventions targeting diet alone. Mobile interventions were particularly effective. Internet-based interventions were generally effective. Conclusions: Digital interventions have small positive effects on smoking, alcohol consumption, and in interventions that target a combination of diet and physical activity. Small effects may have been due to the low efficacy of treatment or due to nonadherence. In addition, our ability to make inferences from the literature we reviewed was limited as those interventions were heterogeneous, many reviews had critically low AMSTAR-2 ratings, analysis was typically intent-to-treat, and follow-up times were relatively short. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019126074; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=126074.

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 · 10.2196/19688

Cites

115 of 115 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. [4]Thomas K NHS Health Check Best Practice Guidance Public Health England 2016 2021-04-20 Public Health England https://www.networks.nhs.uk/nhs-networks/healthcare-science/chief-scientific-officers-16-17-workstreams/diagnostics-supporting-mental-health-t-f-group/lab-in-a-bag-training-workshops/nhs-health-check-best-practice-guidance
  2. [17]Carey R A taxonomy of modes of delivery of behaviour change interventions: development and evaluation The European Health Psychologist 2017 12 31 European Health Psychology Society Conference 2017 Padova, Italy 666 666

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gold, N., Yau, A., Rigby, B., Dyke, C., Remfry, E. A., & Chadborn, T.
Affiliations
  • Public Health England (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Gold, Natalie
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2021-05-14
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
e19688
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3161759293
Cited by
56
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Public Health England
  • Centre for Diet and Activity Research
  • Medical Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council (2084476)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
digital health interventions, cardiovascular disease prevention, behavioral risk factors, physical activity, smoking cessation, alcohol consumption, diet, mobile health, online intervention, intervention delivery mode, medication adherence, attrition, effect size, non-compliance
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Adult, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diet, Humans, Exercise, Cell Phone

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