Programmes using three or more methods may work better; theory made little difference.

The review

1. 01

   Who took part

   The paper covers 171 studies with 224 programmes, published between 1996 and 2016. It does not say how many people took part, or their ages, sex or countries.

2. 02

   What they did

   Each programme was checked for whether its authors named a theory, and for which of 16 groups of methods it used. Programmes used one to 12 groups, about 5.5 on average, and each was compared with a group that did not get it.

3. 03

   What happened

   Programmes with three or more methods raised activity more than those with one or two. Programmes with only one or two methods did not show a clear rise in activity. Programmes that named a theory did no better overall than those that did not.

What the review found

1. Helped

   Across 224 programmes, those with three or more methods got people more active than those with one or two.

   Pooled analysis of 224 studies · vs programmes with only one or two methods · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

2. Helped

   Across 166 programmes, those that set goals and made plans got people more active than the other group.

   • Action: Set a specific goaltested
   • Action: Make an if-then plan for your obstacletested

   Pooled analysis of 166 studies · vs people who got no programme · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

3. Helped

   Across 151 programmes, those that tracked progress and had feedback got people more active than the other group.

   • Action: Track your progresstested
   • Rule: Get feedback on your progresstested

   Pooled analysis of 151 studies · vs people who got no programme · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

4. Helped

   Across 122 programmes, those that added social support got people more active than the other group.

   • Rule: Do it with a partner or teamtested
   • Rule: Share your progress with someonetested

   Pooled analysis of 122 studies · vs people who got no programme · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

Source