ReviewPreventive medicine reports2026
Comparative effectiveness of school- and office-based technology-enhanced interventions for physical activity promotion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: School students and office workers can have higher levels of physical inactivity. Comparative effectiveness of interventions that use technology-based strategies to promote physical activity (PA) between these two populations is lacking. The purpose of this review was to compare effectiveness of technology-based interventions to promote PA in school and office settings. Methods: A literature search was conducted from each database's inception with no place restriction using PubMed/MEDLINE (1946), Scopus (2004), Web of Science (1964), Embase (1974), and Cochrane Library (1995) through January 1st, 2025. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials examining school-aged children/adolescents or adult office workers participating in a technology-based intervention to promote PA. Effectiveness was examined using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Ten school-based and five office-based studies were examined. Two of 10 (20%) school-based studies and two of five (40%) office-based studies showed high risk of bias. There was a significant but small positive effect for school-based interventions to improve PA (Hedges' g = 0.35, 95%CI [0.02, 0.68]) but not for office-based interventions (Hedges' g = 0.07, 95%CI [-0.19, 0.33]). Conclusions: School-based interventions using technology showed a small positive effect for improving PA. More novel, undisruptive, and effective strategies using technology should be derived and rigorously tested in school and office settings.
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.