↓ Skip to main content

Interactive voice response interventions targeting behaviour change: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interactive voice response interventions targeting behaviour change: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis and meta-regression
Published in
BMJ Open, February 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018974
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stergiani Tsoli, Stephen Sutton, Aikaterini Kassavou

Abstract

A number of promising automated behaviour change interventions have been developed using advanced phone technology. This paper reviewed the effectiveness of interactive voice response (IVR)-based interventions designed to promote changes in specific health behaviours. A systematic literature review of papers published between January 1990 and September 2017 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted. From the total of 2546 papers identified, 15 randomised control trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria and were included in a random effects meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was used to explore whether behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that were used in the interventions were associated with intervention effectiveness. Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs showed that IVR-based interventions had small but significant effects on promoting medication adherence (OR=1.527, 95% CI 1.207 to 1.932, k=9, p=0.000) and physical activity (Hedges' g=0.254, 95% CI 0.068 to 0.439, k=3, p=0.007). No effects were found for alcohol (Hedges' g=-0.077, 95% CI -0.162 to 0.007, k=4, p=0.073) or diet (Hedges' g=0.130, 95% CI -0.088 to 0.347, k=2, p=0.242). In the medication adherence studies, multivariable meta-regression including six BCTs explained 100% of the observed variance in effect size, but only the BCT 'information about health consequences' was significantly associated with effect size (β=0.690, SE=0.199, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.08, p=0.000). IVR-based interventions appear promising in changing specific health behaviours, such as medication adherence and physical activity. However, more studies are needed to elucidate further the combination of active components of IVR interventions that make them effective and test their feasibility and effectiveness using robust designs and objective outcome measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 23%
Student > Master 6 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 23%
Unspecified 6 23%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Psychology 3 12%
Other 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,665,261
of 12,996,276 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#5,641
of 10,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,326
of 268,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#363
of 628 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,996,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 628 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.