Programmes raised steps and activity; total results were mixed.

The review

1. 01

   Who took part

   Young adults aged 17 to 35 in 66 trials, with 17,178 people in all. Most trials were run at colleges or universities.

2. 02

   What they did

   Each trial compared a programme with a group that got nothing extra or only basic material. Programmes were online, in person or both, and most lasted three months or less.

3. 03

   What happened

   Steps rose by about 1,900 a day more than in the other group, both up to three months and after. Moderate and vigorous activity rose by about 28 minutes a week up to three months and about 60 after. Total activity in minutes a week did not rise more than in the other group. In MET minutes, which count both time and effort, total activity rose up to three months but not clearly after. The authors did not rate how sure the results are, and that result shows signs of publication bias.

What the review found

1. Helped

   Across five studies, programme groups took more steps a day than the other group, up to three months and after.

   Pooled analysis of 5 studies · vs a group that got nothing extra or only basic material · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

2. Helped

   Programmes added 28.4 minutes a week of moderate or hard activity by three months, and 60.5 later.

   Pooled analysis of 11 studies · vs a group that got nothing extra or only basic material · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

3. No difference

   Total activity in minutes a week did not rise more than the other group.

   Pooled analysis of 6 studies · vs a group that got nothing extra or only basic material · they rated themselves · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

4. Mixed

   Total activity in MET minutes rose more than the other group up to three months, but not clearly after.

   Pooled analysis of 11 studies · vs a group that got nothing extra or only basic material · they rated themselves · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

Source