Effectiveness of Physical Activity Interventions Utilizing Wearables and Smartphone Applications for Individuals with Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Vemuri, A. K.; Rahimi, Y.; Vafaei Sadr, A. K.; Hejazian, S. S.; Zhou, S.; Hakun, J.; Sciamanna, C.; Abedi, V.; Zand, R.
Show abstract
BackgroundLack of physical activity is a major risk factor for Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Wearables and smartphones offer potential advantages in cost, accessibility, and scale to change physical activity This systematic review aims to determine if interventions comprising smartphones and wearables are effective in enhancing physical activity among individuals with CVD. MethodsPubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for RCTs, published since January 2000, on wearables and smartphone applications to enhance physical activity among CVD patients. Non-randomized trials, interventions without a smartphone/wearable component were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the pooled effect on steps per day, distance, VO2, and (moderate-to-vigorous) physical activity in minutes per day. ResultsFourteen RCTs were included. Interventions comprising smartphones and wearables resulted in a mean difference of 1097.4 (95% CI = [409.2-1785.6]; p=0.0018) steps per day, and 3.9 (95% CI = [0.2-7.6]; p=0.0413) minutes of moderate-vigorous physical activity per day compared to control groups. ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that interventions comprising smartphones and wearable devices are effective at increasing physical activity among CVD patients. Wearables and smartphones could provide accessible and tailored interventions to enhance physical activity.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Taking a participatory research approach within workplace health promotion research to improve physical activity levels in office-based workers: a scoping review protocol 94%
- Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation; a scoping review protocol 94%
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effectiveness of aerobic physical exercise on depression symptoms in adults: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials 95%
- Efficacy of Acupuncture on Lower Limb Motor Dysfunction Following Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. 94%
- Supervised and self-directed technology-based dual-task exercise training programme for older adults at risk of falling – Protocol for a feasibility study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health 94%
- Erroneous risks in pharmaceutical versus non-pharmaceutical interventions during data extraction in evidence synthesis practice: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 92%
- The Helping Older People Engage (HOPE) Study: Protocol & COVID Modifications for a Randomized Trial 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Wearables and smartphones for modifiable risk factors in metabolic health: a scoping review protocol 91%
- Use of digital technology tools to examine patient adherence to a prescription omega-3 polyunsaturated acids therapy intended to mitigate cardiovascular risk: protocol and preliminary demographic data from the DIAPAsOn prospective observational study 91%
- A protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial of guided self-help Behavioral Activation intervention for geriatric depression 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Preventing childhood obesity primary schools: a realist review from UK perspective 92%
- Practical recommendations for staying physically active during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic literature review 92%
- Non-pharmacological therapies for post-viral syndromes, including Long COVID: A systematic review 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.