Fowler LA, Grammer AC, Staiano AE, Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, Chen L, Yaeger LH, Wilfley DE. Harnessing technological solutions for childhood obesity prevention and treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current applications.
Int J Obes (Lond) 2021;
45:957-981. [PMID:
33627775 PMCID:
PMC7904036 DOI:
10.1038/s41366-021-00765-x]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2020] [Revised: 11/24/2020] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Technology holds promise for delivery of accessible, individualized, and destigmatized obesity prevention and treatment to youth.
OBJECTIVES
This review examined the efficacy of recent technology-based interventions on weight outcomes.
METHODS
Seven databases were searched in April 2020 following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were: participants aged 1-18 y, use of technology in a prevention/treatment intervention for overweight/obesity; weight outcome; randomized controlled trial (RCT); and published after January 2014. Random effects models with inverse variance weighting estimated pooled mean effect sizes separately for treatment and prevention interventions. Meta-regressions examined the effect of technology type (telemedicine or technology-based), technology purpose (stand-alone or adjunct), comparator (active or no-contact control), delivery (to parent, child, or both), study type (pilot or not), child age, and intervention duration.
FINDINGS
In total, 3406 records were screened for inclusion; 55 studies representing 54 unique RCTs met inclusion criteria. Most (89%) included articles were of high or moderate quality. Thirty studies relied mostly or solely on technology for intervention delivery. Meta-analyses of the 20 prevention RCTs did not show a significant effect of prevention interventions on weight outcomes (d = 0.05, p = 0.52). The pooled mean effect size of n = 32 treatment RCTs showed a small, significant effect on weight outcomes (d = ‒0.13, p = 0.001), although 27 of 33 treatment studies (79%) did not find significant differences between treatment and comparators. There were significantly greater treatment effects on outcomes for pilot interventions, interventions delivered to the child compared to parent-delivered interventions, and as child age increased and intervention duration decreased. No other subgroup analyses were significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Recent technology-based interventions for the treatment of pediatric obesity show small effects on weight; however, evidence is inconclusive on the efficacy of technology based prevention interventions. Research is needed to determine the comparative effectiveness of technology-based interventions to gold-standard interventions and elucidate the potential for mHealth/eHealth to increase scalability and reduce costs while maximizing impact.
Collapse