Table 2.
Intervention features
| Source | Tailored | Theory | Interactive Features |
Attrition (%) |
Logins | Psyc Imp | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Int | ||||||
| Bosak and Yates, 2009 [15] |
Limited |
SCT |
AC, Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, Q, SM, UC |
14 |
17 |
NR |
Yes |
| Carr et al., 2008 [16] |
Limited |
TTM |
Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, Q, SM, |
52 |
62 |
NR |
NR |
| Cook et al., 2007 [17] |
Nil |
SCT, SOC |
GS |
13 |
15 |
NR |
Yes |
| Dunton and Robertson, 2008 [18] |
Full |
TTM, HBM |
Edu, ER, FB |
15 |
16 |
NR |
No |
| Glasgow et al., 2010b[19] |
Nil |
SCT, Self-M, SEM |
Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, Q SM, UC |
17 |
20 |
28 |
Yes |
| Grim et al., 2011b[20] |
Nil |
SCT, |
Edu Q, UC |
28 |
24 |
NR |
Yes |
| Hager et al., 2002b[21] |
Limited |
TTM |
FB |
23 |
24 |
NR |
Yes |
| Haung et al., 2009 b[22] |
Limited |
TTM |
AC, Edu, ER, FB, Q, SC, SM, UC |
12 |
NR |
NR |
Yes |
| Hurling et al., 2007 [23] |
Full |
Other |
AC, Edu, ER, FB, GS, SC,SM, UC, |
NR |
NR |
26.1 |
Yes |
| Kim and Kang, 2006 b[24] |
Limited |
TTM |
AC, FB, GS, UC, |
NR |
NR |
NR |
No |
| Kosma et al., 2005 [25] |
Limited |
TTM |
AC, Edu, FB, ER, UC, |
50 |
54 |
NR |
No |
| Leibreich et al., 2009 [26] |
Limited |
SCT |
AC, Edu, ER, Fac, FB, SM, UC, |
10 |
8 |
NR |
Yes |
| Lorig et al., 2006 [27] |
Limited |
Self-M |
AC, Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, Q, UC |
19 |
22 |
26.5 |
No |
| Lorig et al., 2008 [28] |
Full |
Other |
AC, Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, Q, SM, UC, |
24 |
29 |
31.5 |
Yes |
| Lorig et al., 2010 [29] |
Nil |
Self-M |
AC, Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, SC, SM, UC |
15 |
20 |
NR |
Yes |
| Mailey et al., 2011 [30] |
NIL |
SCT |
FB, GS, SM, ER, UC, Edu |
9 |
13 |
NR |
Yes |
| Marshall et al., 2003 [31] |
Limited |
SOC |
ER, FB, GS, Q |
22 |
24 |
NR |
NR |
| McConnon et al., 2007 [32] |
Limited |
Nil |
ER, FB |
31 |
51 |
15.8 |
NR |
| McKay et al., 2001 [33] |
Full |
Self-M, SEM |
AC, Fac, FB, GS, SM |
13 |
8 |
8.9 |
No |
| Morgan et al., 2009 [34] |
Nil |
SCT |
AC, Fac, FB, GS, SM |
17 |
18 |
120 |
NR |
| Morgan et al., 2011 [35] |
Nil |
SCT |
Edu, FB, GS, SM |
19 |
19 |
NR |
Yes |
| Motl et al., 2011 [36] |
Nil |
SCT |
AC, Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, SC, SM, UC, |
11 |
15 |
8.6 |
Yes |
| Napolitano et al., 2003 [37] |
Limited |
SCT, SOC |
Edu, ER, Q |
12 |
30 |
NR |
Yes |
| Nguyen et al., 2008 [38] |
Full |
SCT, Self-M, Other |
Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, SC, SM |
24 |
31 |
59 |
Yes |
| Ornes and Randsell, 2007b[39] |
Nil |
SCT |
Edu, ER, FB, GS, SM, |
7 |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Parrott et al., 2008 [40] |
Nil |
TPB |
AC |
0 |
0 |
NA |
Yes |
| Plotnikoff et al., 2005 [41] |
Nil |
SCT, TPB, TTM, PMT |
Nil |
18 |
NR |
NA |
Yes |
| Skar et al., 2011 b[42] |
Nil |
TPB |
FB |
42 |
44 |
NR |
Yes |
| Smith et al., 2009 [43] |
Limited |
TTM |
Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, Q, SM |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
| Spittaels et al., 2007 b[44] |
Full |
TPB, SOC |
AC, Edu, ER, FB, GS |
34 |
40 |
NR |
NR |
| Steele et al., 2007 b[45] |
Nil |
SCT, Self-M |
AC, Edu, ER, Fac, Q, SM, UC, |
15 |
10 |
11.8 |
NR |
| Wadsworth and Hallam, 2010 [46] |
Nil |
SCT |
Edu, ER, Fac, FB, GS, Q, SM, UC |
22 |
24 |
NR |
Yes |
| Winnett et al., 2007 b[47] |
Nil |
SCT |
Edu, FB, GS, SM, UC, |
15 |
15 |
NR |
No |
| Zutz et al., 2007 [48] | Nil | Nil | Edu, Fac, FB, Q, SC, UC | 13 | 0 | 50 | Yes |
Abbreviations: Psyc Imp, psychological improvements; All, overall attrition for both groups; Int, attrition for internet intervention group only; NS, not reported; SCT, social cognitive theory, TTM, transtheoretical model; SOC, stages of change, HBM, health belief model; Self-M, self-management; SEM, social ecological model; TPB, theory of planned behaviour; PMT protection motivation theory; AC, asynchronous communication; Edu, education; ER, email reminders; Fac, facilitator; FB feedback; GS, goal setting; Q, quiz; SC, synchronous communication; SM, self-monitoring; UC, updated content,.
Note: Limited tailoring was defined as those interventions that mentioned the inclusion of some tailored materials, but did not deliver a comprehensively tailored intervention as the main component of the intervention. Presence of education material was defined as interventions that delivered structured educational material targeting physical activity knowledge. Psychological improvements are present where statistically significant improvements on any psychological measures is reported in the intervention group (e.g. self-efficacy, attitudes).