ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024
Moderating effects of socioeconomic status and geographical location on the Health4Life school-based intervention.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Social Determinants on Quality of Life in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Cancer Survivors: A Mixed-Methods Study.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
- Process evaluation of the digital Health4Life intervention among a sample of disadvantaged adolescents and teachers.Health promotion international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the moderating effects of socioeconomic status (SES) and geographical location on the efficacy of an eHealth school-based multiple health behaviour change intervention - Methods: Data from the Results: Geographical location moderated the intervention's effect on odds of reporting a poor diet (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.32-2.43, p < 0.001) and diet-related behavioural intentions (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.56-0.89, p = 0.024) over time. Subset analyses indicated that intervention participants in regional areas had higher odds of reporting a poor diet (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.13-2.29, p = 0.008), while those in metropolitan areas had higher odds of improving diet-related behavioural intentions (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.01-1.27, p = 0.041), compared to the control group. No other significant moderation effects were observed. Conclusions: While significant disparities were generally not observed, the geographical differences in intervention effects on diet and diet-related intentions suggest that co-designed and tailored approaches may benefit disadvantaged adolescents to address the disproportionately high rates of lifestyle risk behaviours among these priority populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.