The effects of health coaching on adult patients with chronic diseases: a systematic review.

Summary
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for the prevention and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. Eight databases were searched for studies published in English from 1995 to 17 September 2014. Eighty-four studies were included, with 183 intervention arms, of which 76% (n = 139) included an eHealth component. Sixty-one studies had the primary aim of weight loss, 10 weight loss maintenance, eight weight gain prevention, and five weight loss and maintenance. eHealth interventions were predominantly delivered using the Internet, but also email, text messages, monitoring devices, mobile applications, computer programs, podcasts and personal digital assistants. Forty percent (n = 55) of interventions used more than one type of technology, and 43.2% (n = 60) were delivered solely using eHealth technologies. Meta-analyses demonstrated significantly greater weight loss (kg) in eHealth weight loss interventions compared with control (MD −2.70 [−3.33,−2.08], P < 0.001) or minimal interventions (MD −1.40 [−1.98,−0.82], P < 0.001), and in eHealth weight loss interventions with extra components or technologies (MD 1.46 [0.80, 2.13], P < 0.001) compared with standard eHealth programmes. The findings support the use of eHealth interventions as a treatment option for obesity, but there is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for weight loss maintenance or weight gain prevention.

/pdf/ehealth-interventions-for-the-prevention-and-treatment-of-37iseox8fh.pdf

eHealth interventions for the prevention and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Objectives To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the use of social media to promote healthy diet and exercise in the general population. Data sources MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ERIC, PubMed, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Alt Health Watch, Health Source, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Web of Knowledge and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis (2000–2013). Study eligibility criteria RCTs of social media interventions promoting healthy diet and exercise behaviours in the general population were eligible. Interventions using social media, alone or as part of a complex intervention, were included. Study appraisal and synthesis Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We describe the studies according to the target populations, objectives and nature of interventions, outcomes examined, and results and conclusions. We extracted data on the primary and secondary outcomes examined in each study. Where the same outcome was assessed in at least three studies, we combined data in a meta-analysis. Results 22 studies were included. Participants were typically middle-aged Caucasian women of mid-to-high socioeconomic status. There were a variety of interventions, comparison groups and outcomes. All studies showed a decrease in programme usage throughout the intervention period. Overall, no significant differences were found for primary outcomes which varied across studies. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences in changes in physical activity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.13 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.30), 12 studies) and weight (SMD −0.00 (95% CI −0.19 to 0.19), 10 studies); however, pooled results from five studies showed a significant decrease in dietary fat consumption with social media (SMD −0.35 (95% CI −0.68 to −0.02)). Conclusions Social media may provide certain advantages for public health interventions; however, studies of social media interventions to date relating to healthy lifestyles tend to show low levels of participation and do not show significant differences between groups in key outcomes.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/4/2/e003926.full.pdf

Social media interventions for diet and exercise behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural weight management programmes and examine how programme characteristics affect mean weight loss. Randomized controlled trials of multicomponent behavioural weight management programmes in overweight and obese adults were included. References were obtained through systematic searches of electronic databases (conducted November 2012), screening reference lists and contacting experts. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Thirty-seven studies, representing over 16,000 participants, were included. The pooled mean difference in weight loss at 12 months was -2.8 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.6 to -2.1, P < 0.001). I(2) indicated that 93% of the variability in outcome was due to differences in programme effectiveness. Meta-analysis showed no evidence that supervised physical activity sessions (mean difference 1.1 kg, 95% CI -2.65 to 4.79, P = 0.08), more frequent contact (mean difference -0.3 kg, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.2, P = 0.25) or in-person contact (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI -1.8 to 1.8, P = 0.06) were related to programme effectiveness at 12 months. In meta-regression, calorie counting (-3.3 kg, 95% CI -4.6 to -2.0, P = 0.027), contact with a dietitian (-1.5 kg, 95% CI -2.9 to -0.2, P < 0.001) and use of behaviour change techniques that compare participants' behaviour with others (-1.5 kg, 95% CI -2.9 to -0.1, P = 0.032) were associated with greater weight loss. There was no evidence that other programme characteristics were associated with programme effectiveness. Most but not all behavioural weight management programmes are effective. Programmes that support participants to count calories or include a dietitian may be more effective, but the programme characteristics explaining success are mainly unknown.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/obr.12165

Effect of behavioural techniques and delivery mode on effectiveness of weight management: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

Effective strategies are required to reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity; however, the effectiveness of current weight loss programmes is variable. One contributing factor may be the difference in weight loss success between men and women. A systematic review was conducted to determine whether the effectiveness of weight loss interventions differs between men and women. Randomized controlled trials published up until March 2014 were included. Effect sizes (Hedges' g) were used to examine the difference in weight outcomes between men and women. A total of 58 studies met the eligibility criteria with 49 studies of higher quality included in the final data synthesis. Eleven studies that directly compared weight loss in men and women reported a significant sex difference. Ten of these reported that men lost more weight than women; however, women also lost a significant amount of weight. Analysis of effect sizes found small differences in weight loss favouring men for both diet (g = 0.489) and diet plus exercise (g = 0.240) interventions. There is little evidence from this review to indicate that men and women should adopt different weight loss strategies. Current evidence supports moderate energy restriction in combination with exercise for weight loss in both men and women.

/pdf/effectiveness-of-weight-loss-interventions-is-there-a-1be1ib66r3.pdf

Effectiveness of weight loss interventions--is there a difference between men and women: a systematic review.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a community weight management intervention: A randomized controlled trial of the health weight management demonstration

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

John Kugler

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a community weight management intervention: A randomized controlled trial of the health weight management demonstration