Table 2
Effect size estimates for studies with designs that isolated the eHealth technology.
| Study | Effect size (r) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical activity | Dietary fat | Fruit & vegetable servings | Weight loss | |
| Bickmore (2005) 15 | 0.17 | |||
| Marshall (2003) 21 | −0.03 | |||
| Napolitano (2003) 23 | 0.31 | |||
| Palmer (2005) 24 | 0.02 | |||
| Anderson (2001) 28 | 0.18 | 0.22 | ||
| Baranowski (2003) 29 | 0.09 | |||
| Carpenter (2004) 32 | 0.29 | |||
| Irvine (2004) 36 | 0.24 | 0.10 | ||
| Oenema (2005) 39,a | 0.06 | 0.06, 0.09 | ||
| Papadaki (2005)40,a | 0.05, 0.07 | |||
| Stevens (2002) 41 | 0.11 | 0.12 | ||
| Stevens (2003) 42 | 0.27 | 0.23 | ||
| Verheijden (2004)43,b | 0.15 | |||
| Abroms (2004) 44 | NS* | NS* | ||
| Frenn (2005)47,c | 0.19 | 0.28 | ||
| Harvey-Berino (2002) 49,d | NS* | −0.31 | ||
| Harvey-Berino (2002)50,d | NS* | NS* | ||
| Harvey-Berino (2004) 51,d | NS* | 0.19 | ||
| Kypri (2005) 52 | 0.12 | .15 | ||
| Plotnikoff (2005)54,e | 0.07 | |||
| Prochaska (2004)55,f | 0.43 | NS* | ||
| Southard (2003) 56 | NS* | NS* | NS* | .29 |
| Vandelanotte (2005)59,g | 0.01 | 0.15 | ||
| Veverka (2003) 60 | 0.19 | |||
Note. Effect size (r) is interpreted as 0.10, small; 0.24, medium, 0.37, large.
NS* = results reported as non significant and not enough information reported to estimate an effect size.
aeffect sizes reported separately for fruit servings and vegetable servings, respectively.
bBMI at 4 months.
ceffect sizes for subgroup completing at least half of intervention sessions.
dnon significant effect reported for energy intake.
eeffect size for healthy eating practices r = 0.10.
fphysical activity effect for subsample of boys.
geffect sizes for percent of sample meeting recommended guidelines.