Are interventions for low-income groups effective in changing healthy eating, physical activity and smoking behaviours? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 11 (28th November 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bull, Eleanor R; Dombrowski, Stephan U; McCleary, Nicola; Johnston, Marie
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 4:Issue 11(2014)
• Publication Date: 2014-11-28
• Subjects: PUBLIC HEALTH -- PREVENTIVE MEDICINE -- SOCIAL MEDICINE; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006046
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of behavioural interventions targeting diet, physical activity or smoking in low-income adults. Design: Systematic review with random effects meta-analyses. Studies before 2006 were identified from a previously published systematic review (searching 1995–2006) with similar but broader inclusion criteria (including non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs)). Studies from 2006 to 2014 were identified from eight electronic databases using a similar search strategy. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials, Cochrane Systematic Review and DARE. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: RCTs and cluster RCTs published from 1995 to 2014; interventions targeting dietary, physical activity and smoking; low-income adults; reporting of behavioural outcomes. Main outcome measures: Dietary, physical activity and smoking cessation behaviours. Results: 35 studies containing 45 interventions with 17 000 participants met inclusion criteria. At postintervention, effects were positive but small for diet (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.29), physical activity (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.36) and smoking (relative risk (RR) of 1.59, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.89). Studies reporting follow-up results suggested that effects were maintained over time for diet (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.25) but not physical activity (SMD 0.17, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.37) or smoking (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.34). Conclusions: Behaviour change interventions for low-income groups had small positive effects on healthy eating, physical activity and smoking. Further work is needed to improve the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions for deprived populations.