Evidence Hub

Do automated digital health behaviour change interventions have a positive effect on self-efficacy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

K. Newby, Grace Teah, R. Cooke, Xin-Ru Li, K. Brown, Bradley Salisbury-Finch, Kayleigh Kwah, Naomi Bartle et al.

Health Psychology Review, 2019

5,624 participants · 53 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Self-efficacy is an important determinant of health behaviour. Digital interventions are a potentially acceptable and cost-effective way of delivering programmes of health behaviour change at scale. Whether behaviour change interventions work to increase self-efficacy in this context is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to identify whether automated digital interventions are associated with positive changes in self-efficacy amongst non-clinical populations for five major health behaviours, and which BCTs are associated with that change. A systematic literature search identified 20 studies (n = 5624) that assessed changes in self-efficacy and were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. Interventions targeted: healthy eating (k = 4), physical activity (k = 9), sexual behaviour (k = 3) and smoking (k = 4). No interventions targeting alcohol use were identified. Overall, interventions had a small, positive effect on self-efficacy . The effect of interventions on self-efficacy did not differ as a function of health behaviour type (Q-between = 7.3704, p = .061, df = 3). Inclusion of the BCT ‘information about social and environmental consequences’ had a small, negative effect on self-efficacy . Whilst this review indicates that digital interventions can be used to change self-efficacy, which techniques work best in this context is not clear.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,624 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free