SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Digital health interventions for promoting physical activity among adolescents: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The issue of insufficient physical activity in adolescents (defined by the World Health Organization as those aged 10-19 years) is a significant worldwide health concern, as 81% do not achieve the suggested levels of physical exercise. Although digital health interventions (DHIs) present promising scalable solutions, their actual performance in practical environments often falls short of anticipated outcomes. This systematic review provides a critical analysis of the existing research on digital strategies aimed at enhancing physical activity among adolescents, emphasizing the factors that contribute to their success, user engagement, and equitable access. Methods: This systematic synthesis compiles findings from scholarly articles released from 2020 to 2026. The primary outcome was physical activity, measured by daily step counts or minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Secondary outcomes included engagement, adherence, motivation, psychological factors, equity, and other health-related measures. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, mixed-methods studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. By examining research on a range of digital health technologies-including wearable devices (e.g., fitness trackers, smartwatches), mobile applications, gamified platforms, chatbots, and AI-driven tools-the analysis integrates quantitative data with qualitative insights from co-design studies to provide comprehensive insight into the effectiveness, timing, and target audiences of digital interventions. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using study-design-specific tools: RoB 2 for randomized controlled trials, ROBINS-I for non-randomized interventional studies, AMSTAR 2 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, NOS for cohort and longitudinal studies, AXIS for cross-sectional studies, CASP for qualitative studies, and MMAT for mixed-methods studies. Results: The results reveal a persistent disparity between effectiveness and user involvement: while 63% of the examined DHIs demonstrated positive results in their initial assessments, adherence levels dropped from 73% at the start to just 14% by the fifth month. (The 63% = 29/48 studies reporting a significant positive effect on PA. The adherence rates are from a single cohort study tracking device usage over time, not pooled across studies). The success of these interventions is not solely dependent on advanced technology but rather on the integration of three interconnected factors: (1) developmental suitability, where younger adolescents (approximately 10-13 years) are more responsive to playful, sensorimotor activities, whereas older adolescents (approximately 14-19 years) prefer goal-setting and tracking their own progress. (2) relational design, features like team challenges, empathetic AI characters, and customizable avatars can boost confidence by 50% and motivation by 120%; and (3) contextual relevance, data indicates that moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) peaks between 5 and 8 p.m., highlighting the critical difference between screen time (which can hinder activity) and the frequency of physical engagement (which encourages it). Ongoing disparities in equity-such as digital literacy gaps exceeding 35% and reduced engagement among racial and ethnic minorities-emphasize the need for intentional structural and cultural alignment to prevent digital interventions from widening existing inequalities. Conclusion: Effective digital solutions prioritize the needs of adolescents rather than focusing solely on technology. They emphasize tailored experiences instead of fixed features, foster meaningful connections rather than relying on precise algorithms, and adapt to specific contexts instead of aiming for one-size-fits-all scalability. Future developments should shift away from merely measuring screen time and instead embrace approaches that are rich in experience, affirm individual identities, and promote social justice while incorporating physical activity into the everyday lives of young people. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261415756.
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.