@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/37820，作者="De Santis, Karina Karolina和Jahnel, Tina和Matthias, Katja和Mergenthal, Lea和Al Khayyal, Hatem和Zeeb, Hajo"，标题="体育活动促进的数字干预评估:范围审查"，期刊="JMIR公共卫生监测"，年="2022"，月="五月"，日="23"，卷="8"，数="5"，页="e37820"，关键词="评价;数字的干预措施;身体活动;范围审查;审查;健康促进;行为改变理论;数字健康;公共卫生;背景:数字干预是指由数字工具或技术支持的干预，如移动应用程序、可穿戴设备或基于web的软件。 Digital interventions in the context of public health are specifically designed to promote and improve health. Recent reviews have shown that many digital interventions target physical activity promotion; however, it is unclear how such digital interventions are evaluated. Objective: We aimed to investigate evaluation strategies in the context of digital interventions for physical activity promotion using a scoping review of published reviews. We focused on the target (ie, user outcomes or tool performance), methods (ie, tool data or self-reported data), and theoretical frameworks of the evaluation strategies. Methods: A protocol for this study was preregistered and published. From among 300 reviews published up to March 19, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases, 40 reviews (1 rapid, 9 scoping, and 30 systematic) were included in this scoping review. Two authors independently performed study selection and data coding. Consensus was reached by discussion. If applicable, data were coded quantitatively into predefined categories or qualitatively using definitions or author statements from the included reviews. Data were analyzed using either descriptive statistics, for quantitative data (relative frequencies out of all studies), or narrative synthesis focusing on common themes, for qualitative data. Results: Most reviews that were included in our scoping review were published in the period from 2019 to 2021 and originated from Europe or Australia. Most primary studies cited in the reviews included adult populations in clinical or nonclinical settings, and focused on mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion. The evaluation target was a user outcome (efficacy, acceptability, usability, feasibility, or engagement) in 38 of the 40 reviews or tool performance in 24 of the 40 reviews. Evaluation methods relied upon objective tool data (in 35/40 reviews) or other data from self-reports or assessments (in 28/40 reviews). Evaluation frameworks based on behavior change theory, including goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback on behavior, and educational or motivational content, were mentioned in 22 out of 40 reviews. Behavior change theory was included in the development phases of digital interventions according to the findings of 20 out of 22 reviews. Conclusions: The evaluation of digital interventions is a high priority according to the reviews included in this scoping review. Evaluations of digital interventions, including mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion, typically target user outcomes and rely upon objective tool data. Behavior change theory may provide useful guidance not only for development of digital interventions but also for the evaluation of user outcomes in the context of physical activity promotion. Future research should investigate factors that could improve the efficacy of digital interventions and the standardization of terminology and reporting in this field. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/35332 ", issn="2369-2960", doi="10.2196/37820", url="https://publichealth.www.mybigtv.com/2022/5/e37820", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/37820", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35604757" }