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

BMJ Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e003926 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Williams ◽  
Michele P Hamm ◽  
Jocelyn Shulhan ◽  
Ben Vandermeer ◽  
Lisa Hartling
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace McKeon ◽  
Emelia Papadopoulos ◽  
Joseph Firth ◽  
Rohina Joshi ◽  
Scott Teasdale ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Background: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. Promoting physical activity and healthy eating is essential to help manage the NCD burden and reduce mortality. Social media may be a potential platform for delivering and scaling health promotion initiatives. OBJECTIVE Objective: In this systematic review, we aimed to examine i) the feasibility and acceptability of social media interventions targeting physical activity and/or diet for people with NCDs, ii) the effectiveness of these interventions on exercise and diet behaviours, iii) specific design components used to promote user engagement and iv) the effectiveness on other health outcomes. METHODS Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, EMBASE, and SPORTDiscus from inception until June 2021. Social media interventions targeting physical activity and/or diet were included. Participants were any age, with a diagnosis of one of the following categories of NCDs; cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes or mental illness. Interventions using social media alone or as part of an intervention with other modes of delivery were included. Eligible study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials, feasibility or pilot studies, or quasi-experimental studies. RESULTS Results: A total of 2,358 publications were identified. After removal of duplicates, 2,233 publication titles and abstracts were screened, and 10 publications were eligible, describing 8 individual studies. The study designs included n=5 RCTs and n=3 pilot or feasibility studies, all published between 2016 and 2020. Sample sizes ranged from n=11 to n=312. Half of the studies were conducted in the United States of America. Clinical populations included severe mental illness (n=2), cardiovascular disease (n=2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=2), cancer (n=1) and Type 2 diabetes (n=1). Facebook (n=3) and WeChat (n=3) were the most used social media platforms. The majority utilised social media to deliver health education and facilitate social support and all studies reported >70% retention. Four of the five included RCTS reported significant improvements in exercise behaviours (e.g., step count, exercise capacity) while diet was only assessed in two studies and results were non-significant. Of the 6 included RCTs (including 1 pilot RCT), study quality ranged from fair to good according to the PEDRo quality checklist. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: Social media interventions appear to be feasible and acceptable among specific ND populations and preliminary evidence suggests interventions delivered solely via social media or in addition to other modalities may be effective for improving exercise behaviours. The evidence for diet behaviours remains unclear. While overall there is an emerging evidence base, more rigorous evaluation including replication studies are needed to determine the efficacy of social media interventions. CLINICALTRIAL CRD42021251838


2021 ◽  
pp. 101498
Author(s):  
LouiseJ. Fangupo ◽  
Jillian J. Haszard ◽  
Andrew N. Reynolds ◽  
Albany W. Lucas ◽  
Deborah R. McIntosh ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-54
Author(s):  
Ru Wang ◽  
Patricia L. Danielsen ◽  
Magnus S. Ågren ◽  
Janine Duke ◽  
Fiona Wood ◽  
...  

Keloid scars are difficult to manage and remain a therapeutic challenge. Corticosteroid therapy alone or ionising radiation (radiotherapy) alone or combined with surgery are first-line treatments, but the scientific justification for these treatments is unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is to assess the effects of intralesional corticosteroid injection in treating keloids or preventing their recurrence after surgical removal. Searches for RCTs were conducted through the MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO and Cochrane databases from January 1974 to September 2017. Two authors independently reviewed study eligibility, extracted data, analysed the results, and assessed methodological quality. Sixteen RCTs that included more than 814 patients were scrutinised. The quality of evidence for most outcomes was moderate to high. In 10 RCTs, corticosteroid intralesional injections were compared with 5-fluorouracil, etanercept, cryosurgery, botulinum toxin, topical corticosteroid under a silicone dressing, and radiotherapy. Corticosteroid intralesional injections were more effective than radiotherapy (RR 3.3, 95% CI: 1.4–8.1) but equipotent with the other interventions. In conjunction with keloid excision, corticosteroid treatment was compared with radiotherapy, interferon α-2b and verapamil. In two RCTs, there were fewer keloid recurrences (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89) demonstrated with adjuvant radiotherapy than with corticosteroid injections. More high-quality, large-scale RCTs are required to establish the effectiveness of corticosteroids and other therapies in keloid management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document