Table 2.
N | Article | Primary Outcome* | Secondary outcomes* |
---|---|---|---|
01 | Chen et al. [30] |
↑ Physical activity (N = 15, p = 0.15, r = 0.39) |
= weight = BMI = quality of life = feasibility and usage frequency |
02 | Lee et al. [28] |
↑ Physical activity (N = 16, p = 0.11, r = 0.40) |
= Abdominal circumference = BMI = Weight = Blood pressure = Laboratorial biomarkers (e.g., total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, and triglycerides, glucose, lipid profile) |
03 | Temmingh et al. [29] |
↓ Weight (N = 467, logscale β = -0.0004705, p < 0.001) |
↓ BMI ↓ Abdominal circumference ↑ General health |
04 | Gyllensten and Forsberg [24] |
= Physical activity (N = 44, non-significant between and within groups)** |
= Blood pressure = Weight = BMI = Abdominal circumference = Quality of life = Social interaction = Functionality |
05 | Naslund et al. [27] | Association between cardiovascular risk reduction and weight loss and number of interactions in the Facebook group (respectively (N = 18, t = 2.12, p = 0.06, and N = 19, t = -2.26, p = 0.06) | No significant association between improved fitness and number of interactions in the Facebook group |
06 | Naslund et al. [26] | Higher daily step count was significantly associated with greater weight loss (N = 34, F = 5.07, df = 1.32, p = 0.0314) | Daily step count was significantly associated with fitness change (N = 34, F = 1.92, df = 1.31, p = 0.176) |
07 | Young et al. [25] | ↓ BMI in WebMOVE (t = 3.3, p = 0.001) compared with either in-person (t = 0.10, p = 0.92) or usual care (t = − 0.25, p = 0.80) | Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention was well received |
N number of participants who completed intervention in each study, r calculation of effect size, r, by dividing the z value by the square root of N (the number of total observations or sample)
*Comparison between intervention group (or equivalent) and control group after the end of intervention (or follow-up assessment)
** p-values were not reported in the study