Smartphone-Delivered Ecological Momentary Interventions Based on Ecological Momentary Assessments to Promote Health Behaviors: Systematic Review and Adapted Checklist for Reporting Ecological Momentary Assessment and Intervention Studies.

BACKGROUND: Healthy behaviors are crucial for maintaining a person's health and well-being. The effects of health behavior interventions are mediated by individual and contextual factors that vary over time. Recently emerging smartphone-based ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) can use real-time user reports (ecological momentary assessments [EMAs]) to trigger appropriate support when needed in daily life. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to assess the characteristics of smartphone-delivered EMIs using self-reported EMAs in relation to their effects on health behaviors, user engagement, and user perspectives. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in June 2019 and updated the search in March 2020. We included experimental studies that incorporated EMIs based on EMAs delivered through smartphone apps to promote health behaviors in any health domain. Studies were independently screened. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. We performed a narrative synthesis of intervention effects, user perspectives and engagement, and intervention design and characteristics. Quality appraisal was conducted for all included studies. RESULTS: We included 19 papers describing 17 unique studies and comprising 652 participants. Most studies were quasi-experimental (13/17, 76%), had small sample sizes, and great heterogeneity in intervention designs and measurements. EMIs were most popular in the mental health domain (8/17, 47%), followed by substance abuse (3/17, 18%), diet, weight loss, physical activity (4/17, 24%), and smoking (2/17, 12%). Of the 17 studies, the 4 (24%) included randomized controlled trials reported nonstatistically significant effects on health behaviors, and 4 (24%) quasi-experimental studies reported statistically significant pre-post improvements in self-reported primary outcomes, namely depressive (P<.001) and psychotic symptoms (P=.03), drinking frequency (P<.001), and eating patterns (P=.01). EMA was commonly used to capture subjective experiences as well as behaviors, whereas sensors were rarely used. Generally, users perceived EMIs to be helpful. Common suggestions for improvement included enhancing personalization, multimedia and interactive capabilities (eg, voice recording), and lowering the EMA reporting burden. EMI and EMA components were rarely reported and were not described in a standardized manner across studies, hampering progress in this field. A reporting checklist was developed to facilitate the interpretation and comparison of findings and enhance the transparency and replicability of future studies using EMAs and EMIs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of smartphone-delivered EMIs using self-reported EMAs to promote behavior change is an emerging area of research, with few studies evaluating efficacy. Such interventions could present an opportunity to enhance health but need further assessment in larger participant cohorts and well-designed evaluations following reporting checklists. Future research should explore combining self-reported EMAs of subjective experiences with objective data passively collected via sensors to promote personalization while minimizing user burden, as well as explore different EMA data collection methods (eg, chatbots). TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019138739; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=138739.

Personalized mobile technologies for lifestyle behavior change: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

Given that the one-size-fits-all approach to mobile health interventions have limited effects, a personalized approach might be necessary to promote healthy behaviors and prevent chronic conditions. Our systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of personalized mobile interventions on lifestyle behaviors (i.e., physical activity, diet, smoking and alcohol consumption), and identify the effective key features of such interventions. We included any experimental trials that tested a personalized mobile app or fitness tracker and reported any lifestyle behavior measures. We conducted a narrative synthesis for all studies, and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Thirty-nine articles describing 31 interventions were included (n = 77,243, 64% women). All interventions personalized content and rarely personalized other features. Source of data included system-captured (12 interventions), user-reported (11 interventions) or both (8 interventions). The meta-analysis showed a moderate positive effect on lifestyle behavior outcomes (standardized difference in means [SDM] 0.663, 95% CI 0.228 to 1.10). A meta-regression model including source of data found that interventions that used system-captured data for personalization were associated with higher effectiveness than those that used user-reported data (SDM 1.48, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.19). In summary, the field is in its infancy, with preliminary evidence of the potential efficacy of personalization in improving lifestyle behaviors. Source of data for personalization might be important in determining intervention effectiveness. To fully exploit the potential of personalization, future high-quality studies should investigate the integration of multiple data from different sources and include personalized features other than content.

Do smartphone applications and activity trackers increase physical activity in adults? Systematic review, meta-analysis and metaregression.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of physical activity interventions involving mobile applications (apps) or trackers with automated and continuous self-monitoring and feedback. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and seven additional databases, from 2007 to 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials in adults (18-65 years old) without chronic illness, testing a mobile app or an activity tracker, with any comparison, where the main outcome was a physical activity measure. Independent screening was conducted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We conducted random effects meta-analysis and all effect sizes were transformed into standardised difference in means (SDM). We conducted exploratory metaregression with continuous and discrete moderators identified as statistically significant in subgroup analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physical activity: daily step counts, min/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, weekly days exercised, min/week of total physical activity, metabolic equivalents. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met inclusion criteria and 28 were included in the meta-analysis (n=7454 participants, 28% women). The meta-analysis showed a small-to-moderate positive effect on physical activity measures (SDM 0.350, 95% CI 0.236 to 0.465, I2=69%, T 2=0.051) corresponding to 1850 steps per day (95% CI 1247 to 2457). Interventions including text-messaging and personalisation features were significantly more effective in subgroup analyses and metaregression. CONCLUSION: Interventions using apps or trackers seem to be effective in promoting physical activity. Longer studies are needed to assess the impact of different intervention components on long-term engagement and effectiveness.