4.3 Review

Adherence to eHealth-Delivered Exercise in Adults with no Specific Health Conditions: A Scoping Review on a Conceptual Challenge

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610214

Keywords

eHealth; mHealth; smartphone; physical activity; exercise; adherence; engagement; attrition; apps; digital health; treatment adherence and compliance

Funding

  1. Aristos Campus Mundus projects [ACM2021_02, ACM2022_25]
  2. Fundacio Naccari-Rava 2022
  3. university Blanquerna-URL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This scoping review investigates adherence to eHealth programs in the adult population, and finds a lack of consensus on the conceptualization of adherence to physical activity and exercise, particularly in digital interventions.
Adherence has emerged as a focal point and critical determinant of success for physical activity interventions. The term is used for both traditional and digital interventions, and for prescribed and nonprescribed activities. Many other terms for adherence are being used interchangeably, as there is no consensus on its precise conceptualization. This scoping review aimed to advance the definition of adherence to eHealth programs, specifically for the adult population with no specific health conditions. A total of 2983 papers, published between 1 January 2016 and 13 March 2022, were retrieved from different databases (including grey literature). Of those, 13 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for review. The selected studies used a wide array of technologies and consisted mainly of exercise interventions. Most of the reviewed publications contemplated exercise adherence as a percentage of expected dose. Most (8 out of 13) studies neither assessed nor specified an expected use of the involved technology. Results suggest a need for homogeneity in the conceptualization of adherence to physical activity and exercise, including those interventions delivered digitally.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available