Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics and key findings of included studies

From: Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention

Author(s), Year, Country

Subtype of intervention

Target behavior, Environment

Study design, Setting

Population description

Intervention description

Outcome measurement, Data collectiona,b

Intention in presence of interventionc

Behavior in presence of interventionc

Health outcomes in presence of interventionc

Intention after removal of interventionc

Behavior after removal of interventionc

Quality score

Allais et al. 2017, France [39]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Metro station

General population, n = 205, 62.4% female

Motivational message prompts displayed in 2 metro stations for 3wk to promote stair use (floor stickers & footprints, posters and stair-riser banners). Messages either emphasized ease of stair use (I1) or health benefits (I2). Comparison: 1 metro station without prompts.

Daily observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I: 3wk, F: 3wk

 

(+) I1 (p < .01) and I2 (p < .05) both increased stair use compared to B

  

(+/−) I1 increased stair use (p < .05); I2 showed no effect compared to B

1.00

Andersen et al. 2013, Denmark [40]

Prompting

PA, PE

E, Pretest-posttest design, E-mail

Office workers, n = 160, 78.1% female

Email-based encouragements once a wk. (for 10wk) to walk the stairs for 10 min a day. Comparison: Weekly reminder to continue usual physical activities.

Aerobic fitness (VO2max), blood pressure, leisure time PA, weight, body fat percentage. Time points: B & F: 10wk

  

(+/−) Increased aerobic fitness for intervention compared to comparison group (ß 1.5, 95%CI:0.6,2.3); no change in blood pressure, leisure time PA, weight or body fat percentage

  

1.00

Andersen et al. 2008, USA [41]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Pretest-posttest design, Conference center

Health professionals, 16,978 observations, 35.4% female

A motivational sign ‘Be a role model, use the stairs!’ displayed during 1 day

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 1 day, I: 1 day, F: 1 day

 

(+) Increased stair use compared to B (p < .001)

  

(+) Stair use remained elevated compared to B (p < .001)

0.82

Andersen et al. 1998, USA [42]

Prompting

PA, PE & IE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 17,901 observations, 59.3% female

Two motivational signs displayed in time series: (I1) emphasized health (4wk); (I2) emphasized physical appearance (4wk).

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 4wk, I1: 4wk, I2: 4wk

 

(+) I1 and I2 both increased stair use compared to B; no difference between I1 and I2

   

1.00

Avitsland et al. 2017, Norway [43]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, 45,231 observations

I1 (5wk): Footprints on floor directing to the stairs. I2 (4wk): I1 + stair-riser banners with a positive feedback message.

Observations of stair use with infrared counters. Period: Intervention: B: 2wk, I1: 5wk, I2: 4wk, F: 3wk.

 

(−) Stair climbing decreased after I1 and I2 compared to B (p < 0.001)

  

(−) Stair climbing did not differ from B

0.79

Bellicha et al. 2016, France [44]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Controlled time series design, Worksite

Employees, 36,468 observations, 59% female

I1 (4wk): Directional & motivational signs (emphasizing burning calories). I2 (4wk, 3mths after I1): I1 + colorful stair-riser stickers. Comparison: Different building, no intervention.

Observations of stair use with automatic counters. Period: B: 3wk, I1: 4wk, F1: 3wk, I2: 4wk, F2: 3wk, F3: 3wk (3mths after I), F4: 3wk (7mths after I)

 

(+) Increased stair use for I2 compared to comparison site (ß 4.6, 95%CI:2.3,6.9); I1 did not differ from comparison site (ß 1.1, 95%CI:-1.2,3.4)

  

(+) Increased stair use at intervention site compared to comparison site after 7mths (ß 2.9, 95%CI:0.5,5.4)

0.86

Blake et al. 2008, UK [45]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Hospital

Patients, employees, general population, 143,514 observations

Posters with different messages were displayed (each 1wk) to promote stair use. Posters emphasized either weight loss, health benefits, family or saving time.

Observations of stair use with infrared counters. Period: B: 1wk, I: 4wk, with 1wk between each poster condition

 

(−) No difference in stair use between intervention period and B

   

0.82

Blamey et al. 1995, Scotland [46]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Underground station

General population, 22,275 observations of people

Signs emphasizing health and saving time were displayed between the stairs and escalators during 3wk.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 1wk, I: 3wk, F1: 2wk, F2: 1wk (4wk after I), F3: (12wk after I)

 

(+) Increased stair use compared to B

  

(+) Increased stair use at 12wk post-intervention compared to B (p = .01)

0.73

Bond et al. 2014, USA [47]

Prompting, Feedback

SB, PE

QE, Time series design, Online

Overweight and obese individuals, n = 30, 83.3% female

Mobile application consisting of SB monitoring, prompts and feedback. In counterbalanced order, participants received 3 PA break reminders (each 1wk): I1: 3-min break after 30 min SB, I2: 6-min break after 60 min SB, I3: 12-min break after 120 min SB. A green ‘go’ light appeared on dashboard after responding.

SB: SenseWear Mini Armband monitor. Period: B: 1wk, I1: 1wk, I2: 1wk, I3: 1wk

 

(+) SB decreased in I1 compared to B (p < .005); I2 compared to B (p < .005); I3 compared to B (p < .005)

   

0.88

Boutelle et al. 2001, USA [48]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, University

General population, 35,475 observations

I1: A sign emphasizing health. I2: I1 + artwork and music in stairwell.

Observations of stair use (3 days per wk). Period: B: 2wk, I1: 4wk, I2: 4wk, F: 4wk

 

(+) Increased stair use during I2 compared to B (p < .01); no difference between I1 and B

  

(+) Increased stair use compared to B (p < .01)

0.77

Brownell et al. 1980, USA, Study 1 [49]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall, train station and bus terminal

General population, 21,091 observations

A sign emphasizing heart health displayed for 2wk to promote stair use in 3 different locations, removed for 2 weeks and displayed again for 2 weeks

Observations of stair use, once a wk. Time points: B1: wk. 1 and wk. 2; I: wk. 3 an wk. 4; B2: wk. 5 and 6; I: wk. 7 and 8.

 

(+) More stair use during the two intervention phases compared to B (p < .001)

   

0.77

Brownell et al. 1980, USA, Study 2 [49]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Train station

General population, 24,603 observations

A sign that emphasized heart health displayed during 2wk to promote stair use.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 5 days, I: 2wk, F1: 2wk, F2: 1wk (4wk after I), F3: 1wk (3mths after I)

 

(+) Increased stair use during intervention period compared to B (p < .001)

  

(−) No difference in stair use 3mths post-intervention compared to B

0.77

Bungum et al. 2007, USA [50]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, University, banks and a parking garage

General population, 2050 observations, 53.5% female

Motivational signs that emphasized health or fitness displayed in 8 different buildings for 2wk to promote stair use.

Observations of stair use. Time points: B, I (2 times), F1 (2wk after I), F2 (4wk after I)

 

(+) Increased stair use compared to B (p < .001)

  

(+) Stair use remained higher 4wk post-intervention compared to B (p < .001)

0.82

Cheung et al. 2008, China [51]

Prompting

PA, PE

E, Cluster randomized trial, Mobile text messages

Primary school teachers, n = 52, 78.8% female

Teachers from 3 schools received text messages about PA and SB (3 per wk), leaflets with walking trails and posters with messages to promote stair walking in school (during 6wk). Comparison: 1 school, no intervention.

PA: Pedometer. Time points: B: 5 days, F1: 5 days (6wk after B)

 

(+/−) Increased steps-at-work in intervention compared to comparison (p < .001); no difference in steps-off-work (p = .27) between intervention and comparison

   

0.61

Coleman & Gonzalez 2001, USA [52]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Airport, bank, office building & campus location

General population, 115,153 observations, 51.2% female

Signs displayed near the stairs and escalators in 4 different buildings (i.e. airport, bank, library, office) during 4wk, emphasizing a [1] individual promotional health message or a [2] a family promotional health message.

Observations of stair use, 4 days a wk. Period: B: 4wk, I: 4wk, F: 4wk

 

(+/−) Increased stair use compared to B at the bank and airport; results were mixed for the library and office building (i.e. different outcomes in men and women)

  

(+/−) Stair use remained elevated at the bank and airport, while results were mixed for the library and office building (i.e. different outcomes in men and women)

0.82

Eckhardt et al. 2015, USA [53]

Prompting

PA, PE & IE

QE, Time series design, University

General population, 2997 observations, 80% female

I1: Prompt with a general message: ‘Burn calories. Get healthy’ (2wk). I2: Prompt with a specific message: ‘Walking up stairs burns almost 5 times more calories than riding an elevator’, 2wk.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I1: 2wk, I2: 2wk

 

(+) Increased stair use for I2 compared to B (OR 2.04, 95%CI:1.46,2.84); no difference between I1 and B (OR 1.13, 95%CI:0.84,1.52); increased stair use for I2 compared to I1 (OR 1.57, 95%CI:1.13,2.20)

   

1.00

Engbers et al. 2007, Netherlands [54]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Controlled pretest-posttest design, Worksite

Office workers, n = 452, 62.9% overweight, 39.6% female

Prompts: signs, footprints on floor, motivational texts (including poems), PA facts and slim-making mirrors were placed around the stairs and elevators for 12mths. Comparison: Different building, no intervention.

Health: blood pressure, weight, BMI. Time points: B, F1: 3mths, F2: 12mths

  

(+/−) At 12mths, HDL-cholesterol (p < .001) and LDL-cholesterol (p < .001) were reduced, BMI had not changed (p = 0.20) and systolic blood pressure was increased compared to comparison (p < .001)

  

1.00

Engelen et al. 2017, Australia [55]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Pretest-posttest design, University

University students and employees, 148,071 observations

In 3 buildings [1,2,3] arrow-signs and motivational posters with messages emphasizing fitness, time and mental health were displayed during 2wk.

Observations of stair use with infrared counters. Period: B: 2wk, I: 2wk

 

(+/−) Increased stair use in building 1 (OR 1.16, 95%CI:1.09,1.23) and building 2 (OR 1.09, 95%CI:1.03,1.15) compared to B; stair use declined in building 3 (OR 0.75, 95%CI:0.72,0.77) compared to B.

   

0.91

Eves & Masters 2006, China [56]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Pretest-posttest design, Pedestrian transit

General population, 57,801 observations, 48.8% female

A prompt with a message emphasizing health displayed between stairs and travelator during 2wk.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I: 2wk

 

(−) No difference in stair climbing for intervention compared to B (p = .29)

   

0.91

Eves et al. 2012, UK [57]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Pretest-posttest design, Worksite

Office workers, 123,934 observations, 49.1% female

A prompt with a message about stair climbing and the Mount Everest and an arrow displayed during 18 days.

Observations of stair use with infrared counters. Period: B: 11 days, I: 18 days

 

(+) Increased stair use compared to B (OR 0.95, 95%CI:0.91,0.98)

   

0.91

Eves et al. 2012, UK [58]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Controlled time series design, Worksite

Employees, 58,206 observations

Worksite 1 (I1): Poster emphasizing calorific expenditure (3wk). Worksite 2 (I2): I1 + stairwell messages emphasizing calorific expenditure (3wk).

Time points: B, F1 (2wk after I). PA: Observations of stair use with infrared counters. Period: B: 1wk, I: 3wk

 

(+) Increased stair use at worksite 1 (I1) (OR 1.24, 95%CI:1.15,1.34) and at worksite 2 (OR 1.52, 95%CI:1.40,1.66) compared to B

   

0.92

Ford & Torok 2008, USA [59]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, University

University students and employees, 18,389 observations

Four different posters (that rotated daily) with messages that emphasized health, blood pressure, or burning calories displayed during 1wk.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 1wk, I: 1wk, F: 1wk

 

(+) Increased stair use compared to B

  

(+) Increased stair use compared to B.

0.64

Garland et al. 2018, USA [60]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Controlled pretest-posttest design, Home environment

Residents of affordable housing, n = 34, 76.5% female

PODPs were displayed, the stairwells were decorated, music was played and elevator speed was delayed during 15mths. Comparison: Different, no intervention.

PA: Physical Activity Questionnaire, derived from the Block Dietary Data Systems. Health: Height, weight, waist- and hip circumference measurements. Time points: B & F (12–15 mths)

 

(+) Increased stair use at intervention site compared to comparison site (p = .03)

(−) No difference in BMI or waist-to-hip ratio between intervention group and comparison group (p = 0.81)

  

0.68

Graham et al. 2013, USA [61]

Prompting

PA, PE

E, Cluster randomized trial, Worksite

Employees, n = 1356, 63.8% female

Stair use was promoted in 3 buildings during 2 years through motivational messages (humorous, gain-framed), music and art in stairwells, signs and a scale (for body weight). Comparison: 3 other buildings, no intervention.

Observations of stair use with infrared counters + self-reported stair use (questionnaire). Period: B: 20 days, F1: 20 days (2 years after B)

 

(+) More stair use at the intervention sites compared to control sites according to objective data (ß 470, 95%CI:282,659) and self-report data (ß 1.56, 95%CI:0.33,2.79)

   

0.96

Grimstvedt et al. 2010, USA [62]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, University

Students, employees, 8431 observations

Stair use was promoted in 4 buildings during 3wk through messages emphasizing burning calories and arrow-signs.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 1wk, I: 3wk, F1: 1wk (2wk after I), F2: 1wk (4wk after I)

 

(+) Increased stair use compared to B (OR 1.65, 95%CI:1.47,1.85)

  

(+) Stair use remained elevated 4wk post-intervention compared to B (OR 1.75, 95%CI:1.51,2.03)

1.00

Hodgin & Graham 2016, USA [63]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Controlled posttest only design, College campus

Psychology students, n = 167, 48.9% female

Participants were either exposed to a body-widening mirror or a body thinning mirror before they were instructed to go to the 4th floor (choice: stairs/ elevator). Comparison: exposure to standard mirror.

Observations of stair use. Time points: F

 

(−) Stair use was not different for the thinning mirror (OR 0.68, 95%CI:0.23,2.01) or widening mirror (OR 0.64, 95%CI:0.20,2.06) compared to the standard mirror

   

0.88

Kerr et al. 2004, USA [64]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, n = 664, 74.2% female

Four phases: (I1) redecorate stairwell (3,5 years); (I2) adding artwork (3,2 years); (I3) adding motivational signs (2,5 years); and (I4) adding music in stairwell (5 mths)

Observations of stair use with infrared counters. Period: B: 52 days, I1: 18 days, I2: 160 days, I3: 382 days, I4: 72 days

 

(+/−) More stair use during first 3mths of sign intervention (I3) (p < .05) and during last 2mths of music intervention (I4) (p < .05) compared to B; I1 and I2 did not differ from B

   

0.86

Kerr et al. 2001, UK [65]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, 14,982 observations

A poster with a message emphasizing health was displayed for 2wk in building 1 (I1) and for 4wk in building 2 (I2)

Observations of stair use (2 times per wk). Period: B: 2wk, I1: 2wk, I2: 4wk

 

(−) No difference in stair use in building 1 (OR 1.04, 95%CI:0.92,1.18) or building 2 (OR 1.22, 95%CI:0.96,1.55) compared to B

   

0.86

Kerr et al. 2001, UK, Study 1 [66]

Prompting

PA, PE & IE

QE, Time series design, Train station

General population, 25,319 observations

Stair use was promoted by (I1, 2wk) a poster with a message that emphasized health. Followed by (I2, 2wk) a poster emphasized health + saving time.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I1: 2wk, I2: 2wk

 

(+) Increased stair use during I1 (OR 1.12, 95%CI:1.05,1.20) and I2 (OR 1.22, 95%CI:1.15,1.31) compared to B; stair use increased more in I2 than I1 (OR 1.09, 95%CI:1.02,1.15)

   

0.86

Kerr et al. 2001, UK, Study 2 [66]

Prompting

PA, PE & IE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 12,588 observations

Stair use was promoted by (I1, 2wk) a poster with a message that emphasized health. The next 2wk, a poster emphasized health + saving time (I2).

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I1: 2wk, I2: 2wk

 

(+) Increased stair use during I1 (OR 1.49, 95%CI:1.26,1.76) and I2 (OR 1.39, 95%CI:1.19,1.64) compared to B; no difference between I1 and I2 (OR 0.91, 95%CI:0.78,1.06)

   

0.86

Kerr et al. 2001, UK [67]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Controlled time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 23,934 observations

Stair use was promoted by (I1, 2wk) a poster with a message that emphasized health, followed by (I2, 2wk) I1 + a stair-riser banners with multiple messages. Comparison: Different shopping mall, same poster as I1 during 4wk.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I1: 2wk, I2: 2wk

 

(+) More stair use during I2 than comparison site (OR 2.06, 95%CI:1.48,2.87); more stair use at both sites during I1 (OR 2.18, 95%CI:1.69,2.90)

   

0.82

Kerr et al. 2001, UK [68]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 45,361 observations, 58% female

Stair-riser banners with messages about fitness, health and free and easy exercise were displayed during 12wk.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I: 12wk, F1: 2wk, F2: 2 wk. (8wk after I)

 

(+) Increased stair use compared to B

  

(+) Stair use remained elevated 8wk post-intervention compared to B (OR 1.29, 95%CI:1.14,1.47)

0.91

Kwak et al. 2007, The Netherlands [69]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, 6771 observations, 16.1% women

At two different worksites, posters emphasizing energy balance (between diet and PA) were displayed for 3wk

Observations of stair use (3 days per wk). Period: B: 2wk, I: 3wk, F1: 2wk (1wk after I)

 

(+) Increased stair use compared to B (OR 1.19, 95%CI:1.05,1.34)

  

(−) No difference in stair use between follow-up period and B (OR 1.04, 95%CI:0.98,1.12)

0.95

Lewis & Eves 2012, UK [70]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Tram station

General population, 38,187 observations, 58.0% female

Phase 1: I1: A poster with a message emphasizing body weight was displayed during 2wk. I2: A message emphasizing calories burned was added to I1 during 6wk. Phase 2: 6wk later, I2 alone was displayed again for 6wk, and I1 was added during last 2wk.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk for each phase, I1: 2wk for each phase, I2: 6wk (phase 1) + 4wk (phase 2)

 

(+) In phase 1, I2 increased stair use compared to I1 (OR 1.20, 95%CI:1.08,1.33); in phase 2, stair use also increased when both interventions were present, compared to only one (I2) (OR 1.15, 95% CI:1.02,1.29)

   

0.95

Lewis & Eves 2012, UK [71]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, University

General population, 14,138 observations, 46% female

Phase 1 (I1): In 4 buildings, a poster with a message emphasizing burning calories was displayed in the elevator during 5 days. Phase 2 (I2): An extra poster and an arrow-sign were added to I1 during 8 days.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 5 days, I1: 5 days, I2: 8 days

 

(+) I2 increased stair climbing relative to I1 (OR 1.30, 95%CI:1.20,1.42); no difference in stair use between I1 and B (OR 0.93, 95%CI:0.85,1.02)

   

0.91

Lewis & Eves 2011, UK [72]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Metro station

General population, 23,121 observations, 57.9% female

I1: A poster with a message emphasizing body weight was displayed during 2wk. I2: A message emphasizing calories burned was added to I1 during 6wk.

Observations of stair use, 2 times a wk. Period: B: 2wk, I1: 2wk, I2: 6wk.

 

(+/−) No difference between I1 and B (OR 1.30, 95%CI:0.94,1.80); overall stair use increased throughout I1 and I2 (OR 1.33, 95%CI:1.22,1.44)

   

0.95

Marshall et al. 2002, Australia [73]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Hospital

General population, 158,350 observations

A sign emphasizing health and fitness was displayed combined with footprints on the floor (twice for 2wk, (phase 1 & 2), with two weeks in between (B2)).

Daily observations of stair use with infrared counters. Period: B1: 3wk, I: 2 × 2wk, B2: 2 wk., F: 2wk

 

(+/−) Increased stair use in phase 1 compared to B1 (OR 1.05, 95%CI:1.01,1.10); phase 2 did not differ from B1 (OR 0.97, 95%CI:0.93,1.01)

  

(−) Decreased stair use 2wk post-intervention compared to B1 (OR 0.76, 95% CI:0.73,0.79)

0.91

Moloughney et al. 2018, USA [74]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time Series design, Worksite

Employees, 139,304 observations

Phase1 (I1): In 2 buildings PODPs (posters and signage) were displayed. In phase 2 (I2) environmental enhancements (including artwork) in the stairwell were added. Comparison: Different building, only PODPs.

Observations of stair use for 4 days. Time points: B, F1: directly after I1, F2: directly after I2, F3: 1 year after I2 (I1 and I2 were still present)

 

(+) Increased stair use for I1 compared to B (OR 1.36, 95%CI:1.31,1.41) and for I2 compared to I1 (OR 1.31, 95%CI:1.25,1.37); stair use remained elevated at F3 compared to baseline in both buildings (p < .001)

   

0.86

Müller-Riemenschneider et al. 2010, Germany [75]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Underground station

General population, 5467 observations, 58% female

Posters with the message “Take Me! Your Stairs!” were displayed during 8wk in 3 underground stations

Observations of stair use. Time points (all 1 h): B, I: wk. 1 and wk. 5, F1: wk. 10 (2wk after I)

 

(+/−) Increased stair use for women (p < .001), compared to B, but not for men (p > 0.05)

  

(+/−) Stair use remained higher 2wk post-intervention for women (p < .001), compared to B, but not for men (p > 0.05)

0.95

Olander & Eves 2011, UK [76]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, University

Employees, 4279 observations, 49.5% female

I1: A workplace wellbeing day (including posters and leaflets). I2: In 4 buildings, a poster with a message emphasizing burning calories was displayed for 5 days.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 5 days, I1: 1 day, I2: 5 days (7 days after I1)

 

(+) I2 increased stair climbing compared to B (OR 1.20, 95%CI:1.06,1.37); no difference in stair use between I1 and B (OR 1.02, 95%CI:0.88,1.19)

   

0.95

Olander et al. 2008, UK [77]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Train station

General population, 36,239 observations, 56.4% female

I1: Stair-riser banners with a message emphasizing calorific expenditure were displayed. I2: I1 + a poster with the same message.

Observations of stair use (2 days per wk). Period: B: 3.5wk, I1: 10.5wk, I2: 3wk

 

(+) I2 increased stair climbing compared to I1 only (OR 1.36, 95%CI:1.16,1.60); no difference in stair climbing between I1 and B (OR 1.00, 95%CI:0.95,1.05)

   

0.91

Puig-Ribera & Eves 2009, Spain [78]

Prompting

PA, PE & IE

QE, Time series design, Metro station

General population, n = 33,119 observations, 64% female

Stair-riser banners with 3 different messages (2wk each). Messages emphasized: (I1) health, (I2) health + save time, (I3) health; protect heart.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I1: 2wk, I2: 2wk, I3: 2wk, F1: 1wk (2wk after I3)

 

(+) All 3 messages increased stair climbing compared to baseline (I1: OR 1.50, 95%CI:1.27,1.78; I2: OR 1.35, 95%CI:1.13,1.60; I3: OR 1.53, 95%CI:1.30,1.81)

  

(+) Stair climbing remained elevated 2wk post-intervention compared to B (OR 1.22, 95%CI:1.01,1.48)

1.00

Slaunwhite et al. 2009, Canada [79]

Prompting

PA, PE & IE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

University community, n = 3339, 52.8% female

Posters were displayed with PA health messages that either emphasized (I1) burning calories, (I2) injunctive norm, (I3) descriptive norm, (I4) norms combined consistently, (I5) norms combined inconsistently.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 1wk, all interventions: 1wk

 

(+/−) Stair climbing increased for the Injunctive norm (I2) message (p < 0.001) and Norms combined consistently (I4) message (p < 0.001) compared to B; the remaining conditions showed no effect compared to B

   

0.95

Swenson & Siegel 2012, USA [80]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, n = 340

Stairwells in the building contained multiple interactive paintings (e.g. world map and storyboard) and signs to promote stair use during 6wk. Comparison: Different building, no intervention

Electronic counts of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I: 6wk

 

(+) Increased stair use during intervention compared to B (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 2.57, 95%CI:2.35,2.82); no change at comparison site (IRR 1.04, 95%CI:0.90,1.20)

   

0.77

Vanden Auweele et al. 2005, Belgium [81]

Prompting

PA, PE & IE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Female employees, 3146 observations

I1 (1wk): Health sign beside elevator and stairs on every level that emphasized fitness and health. I2 (1wk): Employees received e-mail from worksite’s doctor about health benefits of PA.

Observations of stair use, multiple days a wk. Period: B: 1wk, I1: 1wk, I2: 1wk, F1: 1wk (3wk after I2)

 

(+) Stair use increased for I1 and I2 compared to B (p < .001); I2 more effective than I1 (p < .001)

  

(−) No difference in stair use 3 weeks post-intervention compared to B (p = .52)

0.77

Webb & Cheng 2010, UK [82]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 20,807 observations, 53.1% female

Stair-riser banners with a message emphasizing burning calories were displayed during 5wk.

Observations of stair use (2 days a wk). Period: B: 2wk, I: 5wk

 

(+) Increased stair climbing compared to B (OR 1.28, 95%CI:1.08,1.53)

   

0.95

Webb & Eves 2007, UK [83]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 77,266 observations, 57.5% female

Stair-riser banners with messages about burning calories and heart health were displayed on the stairs from the basement to the first floor during 13wk (intervention). Translational effects were measured from the first to the second floor (same building), where no banners were displayed (translational).

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 2wk, I:wk. 1–4 and wk. 13. F1: 2wk (5wk after I)

 

(+) Stair use increased during wk. 1 to 4 at the intervention site compared to B (OR 2.76, 95%CI:2.44,3.12) and at the translational site compared to B (OR 1.39, 95%CI:1.29,1.49)

  

(+) Stair use remained elevated 5wk post-intervention at the intervention site compared to baseline (OR 1.67, 95%CI:1.44,1.94) and at the translational site compared to baseline (OR 1.15, 95%CI:1.06,1.26)

1.00

Webb & Eves 2007, UK [84]

Prompting

PA, PE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 81,948 observations, 55.5% female

Phase 1 (I1, 3wk): Colorful stair risers in staircase to promote stair use. Phase 2 (I2, 3wk): I1 + messages on stair risers emphasizing heart health. Comparison: different staircase (same building), no intervention.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 3wk, I1: 3wk, I2: 3wk

 

(+) I2 increased stair climbing compared to B (OR 2.90, 95%CI:2.55,3.29); no difference in stair climbing for I1 (OR 0.88, 95%CI:0.77,1.01) or comparison (OR 0.97, 95%CI:0.87,1.09) compared to B; at the same time, stair climbing increased at the comparison staircase compared to B (OR 1.52, 95%CI:1.34,1.74)

   

1.00

Webb & Eves, 2005, UK [85]

Prompting

PA, PE & IE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 32,597 observations, 54% female

In phase 1 (I1) 8 stair-riser banners displayed a single message (“Keep fit”). In phase 2 (I2) 8 different messages were used, emphasizing health, free and easy exercise and heart health.

Observations of stair use (2 times a wk). Period: B: 2wk, I1: 2wk, I2: 2wk

 

(+) Increased stair climbing during intervention period (I1&I2) compared to B (OR 2.45, 95%CI:2.14,2.80); no difference between phase 1 (I1) and phase 2 (I2), (OR 0.96, 95%CI:0.88,1.04)

   

0.91

Arora et al. 2006, USA [86]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 Factorial design, Experimental setting

General population, n = 136, 55% female

Participants received a newsletter that was either gain- or loss-framed and had either high or low credibility. Content: statements about the health effects of PA.

Intention: 1 item on a 8-point scale. Time point: F

(−) No effect of framing

    

0.68

Berenbaum & Cheung 2014, Canada [87]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

Female undergraduate students, n = 60

Participants received either a gain- or loss-framed advertisement containing a message about the benefits or costs of (not engaging in) PA.

Intention: 2 items. Time points: B, F1 (1wk after I) & registration for open gym session. Self-reported PA: IPAQ (B & F2)

   

(−) No difference between gain-framed group and loss-framed group (p = .21)

(+) More PA in gain-framed group compared to loss-framed group (p = .02)

0.79

Cho et al. 2018, USA [88]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 factorial design, Experimental setting

Young adults (18–35 years), n = 138, 44.2% female

Participants read either a gain- or loss-framed message describing how a running event either influences individual health (individual appeal) or community health (societal appeal).

Intention: 3 items (7-point scale). Time point: F.

(+/−) The gain-framed message resulted in increased intentions compared to the loss-framed message (p < .05); no difference between individual appeal and societal appeal (p = .06)

    

0.73

Cohen et al. 2017, USA [89]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 Factorial design, Mobile text messages

Obese adults (BMI > 27), n = 78, 85.4% female

Participants received text messages on their mobile phone (2 per day for 4wk) that were either gain- or loss-framed and either matched or mis-matched to their motivational orientation.

Self-reported PA (IPAQ) & motivation (URICA scale). Time points: B & F

(−) No effect of message frame on motivation to exercise

(−) No effect of message frame on exercise behavior

   

0.71

Daffu-O’Reilly et al. 2017, UK [90]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 Factorial design, Experimental setting

British South Asians, n = 179, 60.9% females

Participants watched a short movie in which PA health messages were either gain- or loss-framed and either culturally sensitive (about Asians) or non-culturally sensitive.

Intention: 3 items. Self-reported PA: short form IPAQ. Time points: B & F1: (8wk after I)

   

(−) No effect of message framing (p = .71)

(−) No effect of message framing (p = .73)

0.92

De Bruijn et al. 2014, The Netherlands [91]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 Factorial posttest-only design, Experimental setting

General population, n = 317, 61.7% female

Participants received a leaflet with a PA health message that was either gain- or loss-framed and varied in type of kernel state (attained outcome vs. avoided outcome).

Intention: 2 items (6-point scale). Time point: F

(−) No effect of framing (p = .43) or type of kernel state (p = .94)

    

0.71

Gray et al. 2011, USA [92]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 Factorial design, Experimental setting

College students, n = 345, 66.4% female

Participant received a PA health text message that was either gain- or loss-framed and either narrative or statistical.

Intention: 2 items (7-point scale). Time point: F

(+/−) The gain-framed message resulted in increased intentions compared to the loss-framed message (p < .0001); no difference between narrative and statistical message (p = .16)

    

0.82

Jones et al. 2004, Canada [93]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 3 × 2 Factorial design, Experimental setting

Psychology students, n = 450, 69.8% female

Participants received a PA message that had either a credible or a noncredible source. Next, they read a message that was either gain- or loss-framed.

Intention: 3 items. Self-reported PA: subsection Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire. Time points: B & F1: (2wk after I)

   

(−) No effect for source credibility or for gain/loss-framed messages

(−) No effect for source credibility or for gain/loss-framed messages

0.68

Jones et al. 2003, Canada [94]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 Factorial design, Experimental setting

Psychology students, n = 192, 72.4% female

Participants received PA messages that had either a credible or a noncredible source. Next, they read a message that was either gain- or loss-framed.

Intention: 3 items. Self-reported PA: subsection Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire. Time points: B & F1: (2wk after I)

   

(+/−) Credible source caused more positive intentions than noncredible source (p < .03); no effect for gain/loss-framed messages

(−) No effect for source credibility or for gain/loss-framed messages

0.71

Kozak et al. 2013, USA [95]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

Undergraduate students, n = 64, 82.8% female

Normal weight and overweight/obese participants received either gain- or loss-framed messages.

Self-reported PA: sheets to record PA. Time points: B, F: wk. 2

 

(−) No differences in PA after 2wk compared to B for gain or loss-framed messages

   

0.71

Latimer et al. 2008, USA [96]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

Sedentary adults, n = 169, 76.1% female

Participants received gain-, loss-, or mixed-framed (control) messages on 3 occasions (B, wk. 1, wk. 5).

Intention: 1 item (5-point scale). PA: IPAQ short form. Time points: B, wk. 2, wk. 9

(+) The gain-framed message resulted in increased intentions compared to the loss-framed message (p < .05) at 2 wk

(−) No difference in PA between gain-framed and loss-framed group at 2wk

 

(−) No difference between gain-framed and loss-framed group at 9wk

(+) Higher PA in gain-framed compared to loss-framed group (p < .05) at 9wk

0.86

Li et al. 2017, China [97]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

Sedentary older adults (> 60 years) with T2D, n = 211, 52% female

Participants received a pamphlet with either gain- or loss-framed PA messages about physical, psychological and social effects.

PA: accelerometer & daily activity log. Period: F1: 2wk (2wk after I)

    

(−) No difference between gain-framed and loss-framed group

0.71

Li et al. 2013, China [98]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

Younger (age range: 18–35) and older (> 65 years) adults, n = 211, 68% female

Participants received a pamphlet with either gain- or loss-framed PA messages about physical, psychological and social effects.

PA: accelerometer & IPAQ daily activity log. Period: F1: 2wk (2wk after I)

    

(+) Increase in accelerometer-monitored PA in gain-framed compared to loss-framed group (p < .05)

0.79

Lithopoulos & Young 2016, Canada [99]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

General population, n = 176, 59.7% female

Participants were shown gain-framed messages about sports. Comparison: Participants completed a 13-item PA quiz.

Intention: 5 items (7-point scale). Time points: B, F1 and F2 (4wk after I)

(−) No difference between gain-framed message and quiz-group

    

0.79

McCall & Martin Ginis 2004, Canada [100]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

Cardiac patients, n = 60, 8.3% female

Participants read either gain- or loss-framed messages that emphasized PA and heart disease Comparison: No messages.

PA: Attendance at a patient exercise program. Period: 3mths (3 mths after I)

    

(−) No difference between gain-framed and loss-framed group (p > .05) or between gain-framed and control group (p = .05)

0.71

Morris et al. 2016, UK [101]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 Factorial design, Experimental setting

General population, n = 596, 33% female

Participants received PA messages that were either affective or cognitive and either about short or long term effects. Comparison: Gain-framed PA messages.

Self-reported PA: Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire. Time points: B & F (1wk)

 

(−) No effect of intervention compared to comparison

   

0.68

Notthoff et al. 2016, The Netherlands [102]

Message framing

PA, IE

QE, One-group posttest only design, Experimental setting

Older adults, n = 53, 53% female

Participants watched 6 films (in random order) about different physical activities that were either gain- or loss-framed.

Intention: 1 item (5-point scale). Time point: F

(−) No difference between gain- and loss-framed messages (p = 0.10)

    

0.95

Notthoff & Carstensen 2014, USA, Study 1 [103]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

Younger (M = 21.4 years) and older (M = 74.8) adults, n = 126, 59.9% female

Participants received PA messages that were either gain- or loss-framed. Comparison: Neutrally framed messages.

PA: Pedometer. Period: F: 1wk

 

(+/−) Higher step count for gain-framed than for loss-framed messages in older adults (p = .03); no difference between messages in younger adults

   

0.79

Notthoff & Carstensen 2014, USA, Study 2 [103]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

Older adults (M = 75.8 years), n = 59, 79.7% female

Participants received PA messages that were either gain- or loss-framed once per wk. during 4wk.

PA: Pedometer. Period: F: 4wk

 

(+) Higher step count for gain-framed messages than for loss-framed messages (p = .04)

   

0.79

Ratcliff et al. 2019, USA [104]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 4 Factorial design, Experimental setting

General population, n = 1039, 50.3% female

Participants read messages about the health consequences of physical (in) activity that were either gain- or loss-framed and varied in message dose (i.e. 1, 2, 3 or 4 messages).

Intention: 3 items (5-point scale). Time point: F

(+/−) No difference between gain- and loss-framed messages on intention (p = .66); the four-dose condition invoked increased intention compared to the one-dose condition (p = .04)

    

0.79

Vanroy et al. 2019, Belgium [105]

Message framing

PA, IE

QE, Pretest-posttest design, Assisted living facilities

Residents of assisted living facilities (65+ years), n = 111, 67.3% female

In all conditions, participants received a 3 wk. exercise program with instructions in weekly (1 h) meetings. In the prevention condition (I1), the benefits of the program were loss-framed (in visual, verbal and symbolic information), whereas they were gain-framed in the promotion condition (I2). Comparison: Neutral messages.

Motivation: 16 items on a 7-point scale. PA: Exercise frequency. Time points: B, I (wk 1 and 2), F (wk 3).

(−) No differences in motivation between any two conditions at any point in time (p > .05)

(−) No differences in exercise frequency between any two conditions at any point in time (p > .05)

   

0.96

Van ‘t Riet et al. 2010, The Netherlands [106]

Message framing, Feedback

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Experimental setting

General population, n = 299, 55.1% female

Participants received the Dutch PA recommendations, tailored feedback about their PA level and a persuasive PA health message that was either gain- or loss-framed.

Intention: 1 item (7-point scale). Self-reported PA: IPAQ short version. Time points: B, F (only PA): 3mths after I

(+) The gain-framed message resulted in increased intentions compared to the loss-framed message (p < .01)

   

(−) No difference between gain- and loss-framed message group after 3mths (p = .09)

0.75

Wirtz & Kulpavorapas 2014, USA [107]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, 2 × 2 Factorial posttest only design, Experimental setting

Hispanic adults, n = 72, 65.3% female

Participants received PA and diet messages that were either narrative or non-narrative and either gain- or loss-framed.

Intention: 3 items. Time point: F

(+/−) Loss-framed messages resulted in increased intentions compared to the gain-framed messages (p < .005); no effect of narrative frame (p = .41)

    

0.64

Zenko et al. 2016, USA [108]

Message framing

PA, IE

E, Posttest-only design, Experimental setting

General population, n = 295, 35.9% female

Participants were either asked a high- or low-anchor question about PA. Subsequently, they had to describe either positive/negative experiences (respectively) with exercise.

Intention: 3 items (100-point scale). Time point: F

(+) Higher exercise intentions for the high-anchor compared to the low-anchor group (p = .04)

    

0.71

Cooley et al. 2008, Australia [109]

Social norm, Prompting

PA, SE & PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, 62,732 observations

Two posters were displayed consecutively (each 6wk, with 4wk in between) to promote stair use: I1: poster positively emphasized free exercise and health; I2: poster negatively emphasized social norm.

Observations of stair use with infrared counters. Period: B: 3wk, I1: 6wk, F1:4wk, I2: 6wk, F2: 4wk

 

(−) No difference between I1 and B (OR 0.6, 95%CI:0.3,1.1) or between I2 and B (OR 1.0, 95%CI:0.5,1.9)

  

(−) Follow-up after removal of I1 and I2 did not differ from B (OR 0.9, 95%CI:0.5,1.6 and OR 1.1, 95%CI:0.5,2.1, respectively)

0.86

King et al. 2016, USA [38]

Social norm, Feedback

PA & SB, SE & IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Online

Community-dwelling adults, n = 89, 95.3% female

Participants used an application for 8wk that was either (I1) Analytic (PA feedback, tips), (I2) Social (social support, normative feedback, modeling) or (I3) Affective (scheduling, attachment). Comparison: Participants using a control app (on dietary behavior).

PA & SB: accelerometer smartphone data and self-reported on a daily basis. Period: I: 8wk

 

(+) Increased MVPA for I2 app compared to comparison app (p = .01), I1 app (p = .04) and I3 app (p = .03); lower levels of sedentary time for I2 app compared to comparison app (p < .001), I1 app (p < .001) and I3 app (p = .02)

   

1.00

Van Hoecke et al. 2018, Belgium, Study 1 [110]

Social norm, Prompting

PA, SE & PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, 5676 observations

In phase 1 (I1, 2wk), stair use was promoted through footprints on the floor. In phase 2 (I2, 1wk), these were supplemented with a health message and in phase 3 (I3, 1wk) general feedback about the number of stair users in the building was added.

Observations of stair use. Period: B (1wk), I1 (2wk), I2 (1wk), I3 (1wk), F: 1wk (6wk after I)

 

(+) Stair use was increased in I2 (p < .001) and I3 (p < .001), but not in I1 (p = .06) compared to B

  

(+) Stair use remained elevated 6wk post-intervention compared to B (p < .01)

0.73

Van Hoecke et al. 2018, Belgium, Study 2 [110]

Social norm, Prompting

PA, SE & PE

QE, Time series design, Shopping mall

General population, 12,623 observations

In phase 1 (I1, 1wk), stair use was promoted through footprints on the floor. In phase 2 (I2, 1wk), these were supplemented with a ‘stay-in shape’ poster message and in phase 3 (I3, 1wk) general feedback about the number of stair users was added.

Observations of stair use. Period: B (1wk), I1 (1wk), I2 (1wk), I3 (1wk), F: 1wk (13wk after I)

 

(+) Increased stair use in I2 (p < .001) and I3 (p < .001), but not in I1 compared to B

  

(+) Stair use remained elevated 13wk post-intervention compared to B (p < .01)

0.73

Gorin et al. 2013, USA [111]

Behavioral modeling, Feedback

PA, SE & PE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Home environment

Overweight adults (BMI > 25), n = 201, 78.1% female

Participants received a behavioral weight loss treatment (BWL) + a treadmill at home, a TV (viewing time) feedback function, motivational posters and a member at home who served as positive role model during 18mths. Comparison: Participants only received BWL.

PA: Paffenbarger Activity Questionnaire (PAQ). Health: height, weight. Time points: B, I: 6mths, F: 18mths

 

(−) No PA differences between intervention and comparison group at 18mths (p = .14)

(−) No weight-loss differences between intervention and comparison group at 18mths (p = .19)

  

0.88

Van Calster et al. 2017, Belgium [112]

Behavioral modeling

PA, SE & PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, 2458 observations, 36% female

In 2 different buildings [1 and 2], a video of a well-known colleague who chooses the stairs instead of the elevator was displayed during 1wk to promote stair use.

Observations of stair use with Infrared counters. Period: B: 1wk, I: 1wk, F: 1wk

 

(+) Stair climbing increased during the intervention compared to B (p < .001)

  

(+/−) In building 1, stair use remained higher during the post-intervention wk. compared to baseline (p < .01); there was no difference compared to B in building 2 (p = .06)

0.86

Zhang et al. 2015, USA [113]

Behavioral modeling, Social comparison

PA, SE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Online

Graduate students, n = 217, 71% female

Participants took part in a basic online program for exercise class participation (13wk), supplemented with either (I1) promotional PA media messages or (I2) an online peer network with 6 anonymous others in which PA class enrollment was visible. Comparison: Basic online program.

PA: exercise class enrollment & self-reported PA (period: I: 13wk)

 

(+) Higher enrollment rates during I2 compared to comparison (p = .02) and during the last 6wk of I2 compared to I1 (p < .001); no difference between I1 and comparison (p = .08); self-reported PA increased for I2 compared to comparison (p = .02); no difference between I1 and comparison (p = .74)

   

1.00

Howie et al. 2011, USA [114]

Competition, Prompting

PA, SE & PE

QE, Controlled time series design, University

College students, 5711 observations

Posters and signs were displayed and combined with competitive challenges to promote stair use. Comparison: Different building, no intervention.

Observations of stair use. Period: B: 1wk, I: 2wk, F: 1wk

 

(+) Higher stair use at intervention site compared to B (p < .001); no change at the control site compared to B (p = .28)

  

(−) No difference between stair use 1wk post-intervention and B at the intervention site (p = .78) or control site (p = .51)

0.82

Patel et al. 2019, USA [115]

Competition, Social comparison, Feedback

PA, SE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Online

Overweight and obese employees, n = 602, 29.1% female

During 24 wk., participants either competed weekly in groups of 3 for the highest step count (I1), or collaborated within a team for points; points were lost if a participant did not achieve the step goal (I2). Participants selected a daily step goal, tracked their steps and received daily feedback messages on goal performance. Comparison: Only feedback from the wearable device.

PA: daily step counts measured with a wrist-worn wearable device. Period: B: 1wk, I: 24wk, F: 12wk

 

(+) I1 participants achieved step goals more frequently compared to comparison (ß 0.16, 95%CI:0.14,0.18); I2 participants also achieved step goals more frequently compared to comparison (ß 0.11, 95%CI:0.09,0.12)

  

(+/−) I1 participants achieved step goals more frequently compared to comparison (ß 0.07, 95%CI:0.06,0.09); I2 participants did not achieve step goals more frequently compared to comparison (ß 0.03, 95%CI:0.01,0.04)

1.00

Tullar et al. 2019, USA [116]

Competition, Feedback

PA, SE

QE, posttest-only design, Online

Employees, retirees and dependents, n = 9729, 81.0% female

In two institutions, participants chose to participate in a team step-challenge (step competition between teams) or an individual challenge (50,000 steps per week for 5 of the 6-week challenge) during 6wk. Feedback on team standings were provided by wellness managers.

PA: Weekly step counts measured with a pedometer. Time point: F.

 

(+) Higher step counts for team-challenge participants compared to individual-challenge participants (ß 80,714.81, 95%CI:58583.59,102,846.00)

   

0.95

Zhang et al. 2016, USA [117]

Competition

PA, SE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Online

University students, n = 790, 71.4% female

Participants were assigned to one of 4 online conditions with 5 anonymous peers during 11wk for attending exercise classes: (I1) competitive relationships + individual incentives; (I2) supportive relationships + team incentives; (I3) I2 combined with team competition. Comparison (I4): no relationships or individual incentives.

PA: Number of exercise classes attended, registered by class instructors. Period: I: 11wk

 

(+) Attendance rates were higher in I1 compared to B (ß 1.06, 95%CI:0.08,2.04); no differences were found for I2 (ß −0.21, 95%CI:-1.21,0.79), I3 (ß 0.06, 95%CI:-1.43,1.55) or I4 (ß 1.72, 95%CI:-1.38,4.82) compared to B

   

1.00

Patel et al. 2017, USA [118]

Social comparison, Feedback

PA, SE

E, Pretest-posttest design, Online

Families (2 or 3 adult members), n = 200, 56.0% female

During 12wk, families selected a step goal increase, tracked their steps, received daily feedback messages on goal performance and received points as a family; points were lost if a family member did not achieve the step goal. Comparison: Same intervention but without points.

PA: daily step counts measured with Fitbit Flex or Smartphone app. Period: B: 1wk, I: 12wk, F: 12wk

 

(+) Intervention group achieved step goals more frequently compared to comparison (ß 0.26, 95%CI:0.20,0.33)

  

(+) Intervention group achieved step goals more frequently compared to comparison at 12 wk. (ß 0.12, 95%CI:0.05,0.19)

1.00

Strath et al. 2011, USA [119]

Feedback

PA, IE

E, Pretest-posttest design, E-mail

Inactive older adults, n = 61, 83% female

Participants received a pedometer during 12wk with either (I1) a 10.000 step goal, (I2) I1 + motivational feedback or (I3): I2 + telephone feedback. Comparison: Participants received standard PA education by email.

PA: Pedometer. Period: 12wk (comparison group: only B: 1wk & F:wk. 12)

 

(+) Higher increase in PA for I2 and I3 compared to comparison and I1 (p < .001)

   

0.75

Anson et al. 2016, USA [120]

Anchoring, Feedback

PA, IE

E, Crossover design, Online

General population, n = 80, 86.3% female

Participants were assigned a daily step goal of either 5000 or 10,000 steps for 28 days each (in random order), and received feedback on goal achievement. Comparison: Participants from intervention group and participants receiving either a 5000 or 10,000 step goal during 56 consecutive days.

PA: Pedometer. Period: I: 56 days

 

(+) The 10,000 step goal resulted in a higher number of daily steps compared to the 5000 step goal (p < .05)

   

0.86

Venema et al. 2017, The Netherlands [121]

Default change

SB, PE

QE, Time series design, Worksite

Employees, n = 183, 53.4% female

During 2wk, researchers put all sit-stand-desks in the office at stand-up height and a sign was placed on the desks to ask employees to leave the desk at standing height at the end of the workday.

Intention: 3 items (5-point scale). Time points: B, F. Time points: B, I, F1: 2wk after I, F2: 8wk after I

(+) Positive change in intention after intervention compared to B (ß 0.11, 95%CI:0.05,0.26)

    

0.95

  1. Abbreviations: PA physical activity, SB sedentary behavior, PE physical environment, IE information environment, SE social environment, E experiment, QE quasi-experiment, I intervention, B baseline, F follow-up, min minute(s), wk week(s), mths month(s), OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, USA United States of America, UK United Kingdom, PODP point-of-decision prompt, MVPA moderate to vigorous physical activity, BMI body mass index, T2D type 2 diabetes
  2. aF indicates a follow-up measurement immediately after the end of an intervention; F1, F2, etc. indicate follow-up measurements more distant from the end of an intervention
  3. bPeriod: indication of the length of the measurement or observation period; Time point: indication of the moment of measurement(s), specifying the number of weeks or months since the baseline measurement
  4. c(+) indicates a significant effect of the (main/most intensive) intervention in the desired direction; (+/−) indicates both significant and not significant effects on the same outcome variable; (−) indicates no effect of the intervention or an effect in the opposite direction