Home | About | Journals | Submit Manuscript | Contact Us 
pmc logo imagepmc logo image
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
From:
Am J Prev Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC Oct 1, 2008.
Published in final edited form as:
Am J Prev Med. Oct 2007; 33(4): 336–345.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.05.007
Table 2
Effect size estimates for studies with designs that isolated the eHealth technology.
StudyEffect size (r)

Physical activityDietary fatFruit & vegetable servingsWeight loss
Bickmore (2005) 150.17
Marshall (2003) 21−0.03
Napolitano (2003) 230.31
Palmer (2005) 240.02
Anderson (2001) 280.180.22
Baranowski (2003) 290.09
Carpenter (2004) 320.29
Irvine (2004) 360.240.10
Oenema (2005) 39,a0.060.06, 0.09
Papadaki (2005)40,a0.05, 0.07
Stevens (2002) 410.110.12
Stevens (2003) 420.270.23
Verheijden (2004)43,b0.15
Abroms (2004) 44NS*NS*
Frenn (2005)47,c0.190.28
Harvey-Berino (2002) 49,dNS*−0.31
Harvey-Berino (2002)50,dNS*NS*
Harvey-Berino (2004) 51,dNS*0.19
Kypri (2005) 520.12.15
Plotnikoff (2005)54,e0.07
Prochaska (2004)55,f0.43NS*
Southard (2003) 56NS*NS*NS*.29
Vandelanotte (2005)59,g0.010.15
Veverka (2003) 600.19
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.