Table 1 Study characteristics of articles included in the umbrella review

Böhm et al. 2019 [47]

Systematic review

To examine mHealth effectiveness for PA

children and/or adolescents

NA

Australia (2),

New Zealand (1),

Canada (1),

Israel (1),

Poland (1),

USA (1)

7

(1164, 8–18)

PA

Measured at least 1 PA-related variable as the outcome, (5/ 0/ 2)

PA:

Ø

6/11

medium

Buckingham et al. 2019 [53]

Systematic review

To examine mHealth effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability for PA and SB

NA

workplace

USA (11),

Australia (5),

Canada (2),

Netherlands (2),

Belgium (1),

Singapore (1),

Finland (1),

Norway (1),

in multiple countries (1)

30 publications, 25

(73,417, 18+)

PA/SB

Any quantitative measure as primary outcome (21/ 4/ 0)

PA:

14/25 (56%) ↑ over time or vs control

6/25 (24%) Ø

3/25 (12%) ↓ over time or vs control

2/25 (8%) N/A

Between-group difference for ↑ of around 847 (95% CI 68–1625) to 2183 (95% CI 992–3344) steps/day

SB:

4/10 (40%) ↓over time or vs control

3/10 (30%) Ø

3/10 (30%) ↑over time or vs control

7/11

medium

Direito et al. 2017 [52]

Systematic review and meta-analysis

To examine mHealth effectiveness for PA and SB

To investigate relationship between the effect size and the nature of PA/SB outcomes and to code the BCTs

NA

NA

USA (11),

Australia (3),

United Kingdom (3),

Austria (1),

Portugal (1),

Ireland (1),

Canada (1)

21

(1701, 8.4–71.7)

PA/SB

Duration or an estimate of energy expenditure

(9/ 12/ 4)

1 not validated

PA:

Total PA (7 studies):

Ø SMD = 0.14, 95% CI − 0.12 - 0.41, I² = 60%

MVPA (9 studies):Ø SMD = 0.37, 95% CI − 0.03 - 0.77, I² = 78%

Walking (8 studies):

Ø SMD = 0.14, 95%CI − 0.01 - 0.29, I² = 0%

SB (5 studies):

↓ SMD = − 0.26, 95% CI − 0.53 - − 0.00, I² = 0%

8/11

medium

Ferrer et al. 2017 [51]

Systematic review

To examine eHealth effectiveness for PA

NA

Facebook

Not reported

8

(458, all ages

(M = 24.3,

SD = 7,5)

93,4% female

PA

Either as a primary or a secondary outcome measure

(2/ 4/ 2)

PA:

2/5 (40%) RCTs ↑ group by time interaction for steps per week and light PA participation

0/5 (0%) RCTs reported significant main effects for group,4/5 (80%) RCTs reported significant main effects for time

1/3 (33%) non-RCTs studies ↑ group by time interactions for self-reported total PA

1/3 (33%) ↑ total steps during the social condition

1/3 (33%) ↑ self-reported mean minutes per week for all categories of PA

4/11

medium

Hamel et al. 2011 [56]

Systematic review

To examine eHealth effectiveness for PA and HE

preadolescents and adolescents, 8–18 years

NA

USA (11),

Belgium (3)

14

(6123 reported, 9–18)

PA

PA or a PA-related health change as an outcome variable (2/ 10/ 2)

PA:

6/9 (67%) school-based interventions either ↑ PA in the intervention conditions and/or ↓ weight or BMI

2/5 (40%) home-based interventions either ↑ PA or ↓ BMI

4/11

medium

McIntosh et al. 2017 [50]

Systematic review

To examine eHealth effectiveness for PA

young people attending school, college or university

NA

USA (4),

Netherlands (2),

Thailand (1),

Japan (1),

Canada (1),

Europe (1)

10

(5352, young people)

PA

Primary or secondary outcome

(8/ 1/ 1)

PA:

8/10 (80%) ↑ over time or vs control

5/11

medium

Muellemann et al. 2018 [49]

Systematic review

To examine eHealth effectiveness for PA

To compare effectiveness with either no intervention or a non-eHealth intervention.

older adults, 55 years or above

NA

USA (11),

Netherlands (3),

Belgium (1),

Spain (1),

Australia (1),

New Zealand (1),

Malaysia (1)

25 publications, 20 (6671, 56–79.8 years)

PA

Intervention effectiveness for any measure of PA

(5/ 13/ 2)

PA:

9/9 (100%) web-based interventions ↑ over time or vs control

4/7 (57%) telephone-based interventions ↑ over time or vs control

3/4 (75%) text messaging-based interventions ↑ group over time or vs control

7/11

medium

Nour et al. 2016 [54]

Systematic review and meta-analysis

To examine e/mHealth efficacy for HE

young adults, 18 to 35 years

NA

USA (8),

Australia (4),

New Zealand (1),

Malaysia (1)

14 (7984, M = 20.8)

HE

Primary or secondary aim of increasing FVI (0/ 14/ 0), 5 not validated

HE:

FVI (8 studies):

↑ SMD = 0.22 95% CI 0.11–0.33, I² = 68.5%

Vegetable intake (5 studies):

↑ SMD = 0.15 95% CI 0.04–0.28, I² = 31.4%

9/11

high

Rocha et al. 2019 [55]

Meta-analysis

To examine eHealth effectiveness for HE

To investigate the relationship of effectiveness and intervention characteristics (eHealth tool, tailoring, BCTs, and age group)

NA

NA

USA (10),

Netherlands (3),

Scotland (1),

Belgium (1),

Portugal (1),

Italy (1),

Sweden (1),

New Zealand (1)

19 (6894, M = 4,5 to 57,75)

HE

Reporting FVI results quantitatively

(0/ 19/ 0), 5 not validated

HE:

FVI (19 studies):

↑ g = 0.26 95% CI 0.17, 0.35, I² = 62.77, p < .001

6/11

medium

Schoeppe et al. 2016 [57]

Systematic review

To examine mHealth effectiveness for PA, SB and HE

children and/or adults

NA

USA (9),

Australia (6),

Canada (3),

Switzerland (2),

Netherlands (2),

Ireland (2),

Italy (1),

Israel (1),

New Zealand (1)

30 publications, 27 (2699, 8–71)

PA/SB/HE

Efficacy for behavior change. All types and units of measurements (8/ 13/ 6)

PA SB and/or HE:

19/27 (70%) ↑ in behavioral and related health outcomes either over time or vs control

5/10 (50%) ↑ single health behavior interventions vs control

7/17 (41%) ↑ multiple health behavior interventions vs control

8/13 (62%) ↑app in conjunction with other intervention strategies vs control

5/14 (36%) ↑ stand-alone app interventions vs control

4/11

medium

Stephenson et al. 2017 [48]

Systematic review and meta-analysis

To examine e/mHealth for SB

To identify the BCTs used within interventions

adults, 18 years or above

NA

Not reported

17 (1967, M = 20,4 - 64,1)

SB

Device-measured or self-reported or proxy measure of SB

(8/ 6/ 3)

SB (15 studies):

↓ −41.28 min/day 95% CI −60.99 - − 21.58, I² = 77% at end point follow-up

5/11

medium