Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Psychiatry. Sep 19, 2025; 15(9): 108847
Published online Sep 19, 2025. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v15.i9.108847
Table 1 Population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design criteria

Criteria
Description
PopulationDoes the review involve children or adolescents (≤ 18 years)Included: Children and adolescents aged 0–18 years from both clinical and general populations. Excluded: Adults (> 18 years); animal or in vitro studies; populations not reporting age-specific outcomes for youth; individuals in institutionalized or inpatient settings (unless specifically specifically targeting mental or cognitive outcomes)
InterventionDoes the review involve technology-enhanced physical activity interventionsIncluded: Interventions that incorporate PA enhanced by technology (e.g., virtual reality-based exercise, mobile health applications, gamified programs, internet-based platforms, wearable-integrated training, or multicomponent digital PA modules). Excluded: Conventional PA interventions without a technological component; sedentary behavior interventions without PA emphasis
ComparatorDoes the review include a control or comparator conditionIncluded: Wait-list, usual care, no intervention, or traditional non-digital PA programs. Excluded: Reviews without any comparator condition reported
OutcomesDoes the review report on brain or MH outcomesIncluded: Cognitive function (e.g., memory, attention, executive function). Psychological wellbeing (e.g., anxiety, depression, emotional regulation, self-esteem). Excluded: Non-MH-related outcomes only (e.g., musculoskeletal fitness, nutrition-only outcomes, motor coordination in isolation)
Study designIs the review secondary researchIncluded: Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, umbrella reviews, or overview of reviews. Excluded: Primary research (e.g., randomized controlled trials, observational studies). Non-systematic narrative reviews or protocols without results
Table 2 Summary of included studies by intervention type
Ref.
A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews
Executive function
Cognitive function
Mental health
Quality of evidence (/4)
Virtual reality
Zhang et al[14]ModerateSufficient evidence in favorSome evidence in favorSufficient evidence in favor3
Hao et al[15]ModerateSufficient evidence in favorSome evidence in favorND3
App
Langarizadeh et al[16]ModerateNDSome evidence in favorSome evidence in favor3
Exergame
Chen and Wilkosz[17]HighNDNDSome evidence in favor4
Liang et al[18]ModerateSome evidence in favorSufficient evidence in favorSome evidence in favor3
Internet
Lalanza et al[19]HighSome evidence in favorSome evidence in favorSufficient evidence in favor4
Multicomponent
Henderson et al[20]ModerateNDSome evidence in favorSufficient evidence in favor3
Technology-enhanced physical activity
Li et al[21]ModerateSome evidence in favorSufficient evidence in favorSome evidence in favor3
Cognitive bias modification/attention bias modification
Cristea et al[22]HighNDSome evidence in favorSome evidence in favor4
Unguided/guided digital self-help
Bennett et al[23]ModerateNDSome evidence in favorSufficient evidence in favor3
School-based digital interventions
Hugh-Jones et al[24]ModerateSome evidence in favorNDSufficient evidence in favor3
Table 3 Effects of technology-enhanced physical activity intervention variables on executive function, cognitive function, and mental health
Intervention category
Executive function
Cognitive function
Mental health
Virtual realityOverall: 1 review (n = 304)1,41 review (n = 304)31 review (n = 304)3
AppOverall22 reviews (n = 978)32 reviews (n = 978)5
Augmented realityOverall251 review (n = 912)3,5
Heart rate variabilityOverall1ND2 reviews (n = 795)3
ElectroencephalogramOverall1ND1 review (n = 215)3
Comprehensive programOverall11 review (n = 404)32 reviews (n = 3299)4
Traditional + onlineOverall12 reviews (n = 200)32 reviews (n = 711)5
Table 4 Summary of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Ref.
Year
Country
Number of studies
Sample size
Intervention
Outcome measure
Limitations
HughJones et al[24]2020United Kingdom2020 studies (RCT and non-RCT)School-based prevention interventions for anxiety (cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, skills training etc.)Anxiety symptoms reduction (various scales used)Heterogeneity in setting and delivery
Bennett et al[23]2019Multi-country (Mainly United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany)NRN = 3396 (self-help); n = 1100 (face-to-face); n = 2366 (control)Unguided and guided self-help (bibliotherapy, computerised, online materials)Depression, anxiety, disruptive behaviour symptoms, treatment acceptabilityLacked EF/CF outcomes
Cristea et al[22]2015Multi-country (Mainly Romania, Italy, Netherlands, United States)NR23 RCTs, n = 28 per conditionCBM, including attention bias modification and interpretation bias modification (CBM-I)MH symptoms (anxiety, depression), cognitive bias change, treatment acceptabilityShort duration; mostly single-session
Chen and Wilkosz[17]2014United States1414 studies included; n ranged from 21 to 473 per studyTechnology-based interventions (internet-based programs, active video games) focused on diet and PABMI, body fat percentage, PA level, dietary behavior, psychosocial outcomesMixed tech modalities; small sample
Hao et al[15]2024Multi-country (Mainly United States, Australia, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Belgium)1818 studies included; n ranged from 8 to 51 per studyHome-based VR rehabilitation (Nintendo Wii, Kinect, customized VR systems, VR-integrated constraint-induced therapy)Motor function (upper extremity, gross motor), strength, balance, bone density, cognition, daily activity performance, ParticipationCerebral palsy only; small samples
Henderson et al[20]2025Multi-country (Mainly Canada, United States, Australia, Europe)NR73 RCTs included; Total n = 6305; 53% femaleBehavioural and psychological interventions including PA, nutrition, psychological therapy, technology-based, multicomponent interventionsBMI, BMI z-score, weight, health-related quality of life, anxiety, depression, cardiometabolic outcomes (blood pressure, lipids, insulin resistance), adverse eventsNo subgroup; varied designs
Lalanza et al[19]2023Multi-country (Mainly Spain, United States, Netherlands, Australia)143143 studies included; n varies across studiesHRV biofeedback with different protocols: Optimal RF, individual RF, preset-pace RFCardiovascular health, MH (anxiety, stress reduction), performance outcomes, HRV parametersVaried tech tools; lacked follow-up
Langarizadeh et al[16]2021Multi-country (Mainly United States, Canada, Australia, Italy, Sweden)99 studies included; n = 19 to 361 per study; Total n = 978Mobile app-based interventions for weight management (diet, PA, behavior change)Body weight, BMI, waist circumference, fat mass, PA level (step count)No EF/CF analysis
Li et al[21]2021ChinaNR50 students in a middle schoolExercise intervention based on medical imaging monitoring; different intensities (low, medium, high) aerobic exercise interventionInhibitory control function (stroop task response time and accuracy), cardiopulmonary function, vital capacity, step test indexNo control group; varying protocols