DE-PASS best evidence statement (BESt): determinants of adolescents’ device-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour in settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Creators: name: Kolovelonis, Athanasios
name: Syrmpas, Ioannis
name: Marcuzzi, Anna
name: Khudair, Mohammed
name: Ng, Kwok
name: Tempest, Gavin Daniel
name: Peric, Ratko
name: Bartoš, František
name: Maier, Maximilian
name: Brandes, Mirko
name: Carlin, Angela
name: Ciaccioni, Simone
name: Cortis, Cristina
name: Corvino, Chiara
name: Di Credico, Andrea
name: Drid, Patrik
name: Gallè, Francesca
name: Izzicupo, Pascal
name: Jahre, Henriette
name: Kongsvold, Atle
name: Kouidi, Evangelia
name: Mork, Paul Jarle
name: Palumbo, Federico
name: Rumbold, Penny Louise Sheena
name: Sandu, Petru
name: Stavnsbo, Mette
name: Vilela, Sofa
name: Woods, Catherine
name: Wunsch, Kathrin
name: Capranica, Laura
name: MacDonncha, Ciaran
name: Chun Man Ling, Fiona
Publisher: name: University of Limerick
Year: 2024
Subjects: classificationCode: 321006
subject: Sport and exercise nutrition

description: Background Although physical activity (PA) is associated with signifcant health benefts, only a small percentage of adolescents meet recommended PA levels. This systematic review with meta-analysis explored the modifable determinants of adolescents’ device-based PA and/or sedentary behaviour (SB), evaluated in previous interventions and examined the associations between PA/SB and these determinants in settings.
Methods A search was conducted on fve electronic databases, including papers published from January 2010 to July 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) or Controlled Trials (CTs) measuring adolescents’ device-based PA/SB and their modifable determinants at least at two time points: pre- and post-intervention were considered eligible. PA/SB and determinants were the main outcomes. Modifable determinants were classifed after data extraction adopting the social-ecological perspective. Robust Bayesian meta-analyses (RoBMA) were performed per each study setting. Outcomes identifed in only one study were presented narratively. The risk of bias for each study and the certainty of the evidence for each meta-analysis were evaluated. The publication bias was also checked. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021282874.
Results Fourteen RCTs (eight in school, three in school and family, and one in the family setting) and one CT (in the school setting) were included. Fifty-four modifable determinants were identifed and were combined into 33 broader determinants (21 individual–psychological, four individual–behavioural, seven interpersonal, and one institutional). RoBMAs revealed none or negligible pooled intervention efects on PA/SB or determinants in all settings. The certainty of the evidence of the impact of interventions on outcomes ranged from very low to low. Narratively, intervention efects in favour of the experimental group were detected in school setting for the determinants: knowledge of the environment for practicing PA, d=1.84, 95%CI (1.48, 2.20), behaviour change techniques, d=0.90, 95%CI (0.09, 1.70), choice provided, d=0.70, 95%CI (0.36, 1.03), but no corresponding efects on PA or SB were found.
Conclusions Weak to minimal evidence regarding the associations between the identifed modifable determinants and adolescents’ device-based PA/SB in settings were found, probably due to intervention inefectiveness. Well?designed and well-implemented multicomponent interventions should further explore the variety of modifable determinants of adolescents’ PA/SB, including policy and environmental variables.