Table 4.

Summary of primary and second outcomes reported by hybrid intervention studies

N	Article	Primary Outcome*	Secondary outcomes*
01	McKibbin et al. [11]	↓ BMI (N = 52, F(1,50) = 10.40, p < 0.01) ↓ Abdominal circumference (N = 52, F(1,50) = 6.60, p < 0.05)	↓ Diabetes knowledge = Glycated hemoglobin = Energy expendidure
02	Brown et al. [36]	↓ Weight between groups at the end of intervention period (N = 92, F = 6.936, p = 0.01), but not at 6 (F = 1.527, p = 0.22) or 12 months (F = 0.522, p = 0.47)	↓ Weight between settings
03	Green et al. [37]	↓ Weight Baseline to 6-months (N = 178, F = 11.9, df = 1,171, p = 0.001) Baseline to 6-months (N = 168, F = 4.9, df = 1,161, p = 0.03)	↓ Glucose = Insulin = Blood pressure = Triglycerides = LDL = HDL
04	Browne et al. [35]**	↑ Physical health (N = 16, Posttest: d = 0.39; follow-up: d = 0.30)**** ↑ Activity level (N = 16, Posttest: d = from 0.33 to 3.19; follow-up: d = from 0.02 to 1.36) ↑ Social support (N = 16, Posttest: d = 0.11; follow-up: d = 0.25) ↑ Mental health (N = 16, Posttest: d = from -0.06 to 0.72; follow-up: d = from 0.00 to 0.41)	= BMI = Weight = Systolic blood pressure = Diastolic blood pressure = Resting heart rate ↑ pedometer adherence among intervention group Moderate to high levels of acceptability High levels of satisfaction with reporting daily steps
05	Aschbrenner et al. [33]	= Weight and Physical activity (N = 13)	↑ Attendance ↑ Satisfaction ↓ Cardiovascular risk
06	Aschbrenner et al. [34]	↓ Weight (N = 25, t = 3.13, df = 24, p = 0.005)	= cardiovascular risk ↑ Participants’ perceptions of peer group support and ↓ weight
07	Holt et al. [38]	= Weight (N = 340, p = 0.963)	= Dietary habits = Smoking habits = Quality of life = Obesity perception = Psychiatric symptoms = Abdominal circumference ↑ Physical activity
08	Looijmans et al. [32]	= Waist circumference (N = 238, β = 2.26, p = 0.45)	= Metabolic syndrome = BMI
01	Williams et al. [31]	↑ acceptability, feasibility, and recruitment rates	= Sedentary behavior = Blood pressure ↓ Metabolic syndrome

*Comparison between intervention group (or equivalent) and control group after the end of intervention (or follow-up assessment)

** Given the small sample size and nature of the pilot study, formal inferential statistics are not appropriate, within-group effect sizes for continuous outcome variables were computed to evaluate the magnitude of pre-post and follow-up

**** Effect sizes were calculated by dividing the mean difference (baseline to posttest and baseline to follow-up) by the baseline standard deviation, and evaluated as ranges small (d = 0.20), medium (d = 0.50), and large (d = 0.80)