No abstract

ObjectiveSmartphone games that aim to alter health behaviours are common, but there is uncertainty about how to achieve this. We systematically reviewed health apps containing gaming elements analysing their embedded behaviour change techniques.MethodsTwo trained researchers independently coded apps for behaviour change techniques using a standard taxonomy. We explored associations with user ratings and price.Data sourcesWe screened the National Health Service (NHS) Health Apps Library and all top-rated medical, health and wellness and health and fitness apps (defined by Apple and Google Play stores based on revenue and downloads). We included free and paid English language apps using ‘gamification’ (rewards, prizes, avatars, badges, leaderboards, competitions, levelling-up or health-related challenges). We excluded apps targeting health professionals.Results64 of 1680 (4%) health apps included gamification and met inclusion criteria; only 3 of these were in the NHS Library. Behaviour change categories used were: feedback and monitoring (n=60, 94% of apps), reward and threat (n=52, 81%), and goals and planning (n=52, 81%). Individual techniques were: self-monitoring of behaviour (n=55, 86%), non-specific reward (n=49, 82%), social support unspecified (n=48, 75%), non-specific incentive (n=49, 82%) and focus on past success (n=47, 73%). Median number of techniques per app was 14 (range: 5–22). Common combinations were: goal setting, self-monitoring, non-specific reward and non-specific incentive (n=35, 55%); goal setting, self-monitoring and focus on past success (n=33, 52%). There was no correlation between number of techniques and user ratings (p=0.07; rs=0.23) or price (p=0.45; rs=0.10).ConclusionsFew health apps currently employ gamification and there is a wide variation in the use of behaviour change techniques, which may limit potential to improve health outcomes. We found no correlation between user rating (a possible proxy for health benefits) and game content or price. Further research is required to evaluate effective behaviour change techniques and to assess clinical outcomes.Trial registration numberCRD42015029841.

No abstract

Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Strength tests (all cancers), Outcome 1 Strength tests (all cancers, 12 weeks of follow-up)............... Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Strength tests (all cancers), Outcome 2 Strength tests (all cancers: 12 weeks of follow-up: sensitivity analysis

count 298Key words: Exercise, prostate cancer, quality of life, fatigue, adverse effects AbstractContext: Exercise for prostate cancer survivors could be beneficial. However, no systematic review across cancer stages and treatment types addressing potential benefits and harms exists to date.Objectives: Primarily, to assess the effects of exercise on cancer specific quality of life and adverse events in prostate cancer trials. Evidence acquisition:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and PEDro. We also searched grey literature databases, including trials registers. Searches were from database inception to March 2015.Standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated for meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis:We included 16 RCTs involving 1574 men with prostate cancer. Follow-up varied from just eight weeks to 12months. RCTs involved men with stages I-IV cancers. High risk of bias was frequently due to attrition and intervention adherence. Seven trials involving 912 men measured cancer specific quality of life. No significant effect on this outcome was found from pooling the data from these seven trials (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI = -0.08, 0.34, median follow-up 12 weeks). Sensitivity analysis of studies that were judged to be of high quality indicated a moderate positive effect estimate (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.08, 0.58, median follow-up 12 weeks). Similar beneficial effects were seen in cancer specific fatigue, submaximal fitness and lower body strength. We found no evidence of benefit for disease progression, cardiovascular health or sexual function. There were no deaths attributable to exercise interventions. Other serious adverse events (e.g. myocardial infarction) were equivalent to those seen in controls. Conclusions:These results support exercise interventions for improving cancer specific quality of life, cancer specific fatigue, submaximal fitness and lower body strength.Patient summary: This review shows that exercise or physical activity interventions can improve quality of life, fatigue, fitness and function for men with prostate cancer. BackgroundProstate cancer is the primary cause of years lived with cancer disability in the Americas, North- hypercalcaemia, spinal cord compression, pathological fractures) can also adversely affect health. [7,8] Several recent systematic reviews have examined the effects of exercise in cancer survivors, in terms of quality of life outcome [9,10], exercise behaviour [11] and effects on fatigue.[12] These reviews are an amalgamation of heterogeneous primary cancers. Indeed, most evidence comes from trials in breast cancer and as such cannot be generalised to men with prostate cancer. Further, exercise therapy appears beneficial in the short term, but little is known about dose, duration and longerterm effects of such therapy, including adverse effects over an extended follow-up. Finally, despite the potential health benefits for men with prostate cancer, few clinicians are aware of the role of...