Effect of a Nutrient Rich Foods Consumer Education Program: Results from the Nutrition Advice Study

Glanz, Karen; Hersey, James; Cates, Sheryl; Muth, Mary K.; Creel, Darryl; Nicholls, Jill; Fulgoni, Victor L.; Zaripheh, Susan

doi:10.1016/j.jada.2011.08.031

Cited by 41 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Students completed a short form after viewing each episode to track compliance with treatment.Hekler et al, 2010 [44] N = 28 calculated from paperAttrition: 10%Treatment: Undergraduate students enrolled in a food-related social issues course taught by study authors read selected portions of popular books (e.g., Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma ); watched documentaries (e.g., Morgan Spurlock’s Supersize Me ); discussed major themes of food-related social issues in class; wrote a newspaper opinion article; and created a video in small groups advocating behavior change related to a course theme. Students were encouraged to find food-related social issue organizations, attend events, and share experiences. N = 72 calculated from paperAttrition: 14%Treatment: Undergraduate students enrolled in 1 of 3 upper-level health- or obesity-related courses (Health Psychology, Community Assessment/Health, Obesity:Clinical/Societal Implications) taught by experienced health promotion researchers.Glanz et al, 2012 [60] N = 128 (completed all assessments)Attrition:11% a Treatment: Adult primary household food shopper/preparers with children who were interested in improving their diets received an 8-week nutrient-rich foods (NRF) education program consisting of 1-h face-to-face educational session led by a registered dietitian consisting of a 15-min video, hands-on exercise, and review of program tools; access to a website to look up NRF food scores; toll-free telephone number to reach a dietitian; weekly motivational and reminder email messages; and biweekly mailings. N = 61 (completed all assessments)Attrition:11% a Treatment: Adult primary household food shopper/preparers with children who were interested in improving their diets received an 8-week program comprised of a 1-h education session led by a registered dietitian that emphasized general nutrition guidance, consisting of a 15-min video about the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and MyPyramid; an information sheet and group exercise on the Nutrition Facts Panel; and 2 mailings of government produced nutrition brochures.McClelland et al, 2013 [42]N=463 a ; at least 172 at follow-upAttrition: 30% a Limited-resource, older adults received 5 weekly group sessions from “Eat Smart, Stay Well”; topics included healthy diet, effects of dietary fats, benefits of F/V, and strategies for making healthy choices. All sessions were taught by County Extension Agents and included progress check-ups, discussions, food preparation demonstrations, interactive hands-on skill-building activities, taste tests, challenges, and peer-group exchange.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research

Byrd‐Bredbenner

Spaccarotella

et al. 2017

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWell-designed research trials are critical for determining the efficacy and effectiveness of nutrition education interventions. To determine whether behavioral and/or cognition changes can be attributed to an intervention, the experimental design must include a control or comparison condition against which outcomes from the experimental group can be compared. Despite the impact different types of control groups can have on study outcomes, the treatment provided to participants in the control condition has received limited attention in the literature.MethodsA systematic review of control groups in nutrition education interventions was conducted to better understand how control conditions are described in peer-reviewed journal articles compared with experimental conditions. To be included in the systematic review, articles had to be indexed in CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, WoS, and/or ERIC and report primary research findings of controlled nutrition education intervention trials conducted in the United States with free-living consumer populations and published in English between January 2005 and December 2015. Key elements extracted during data collection included treatment provided to the experimental and control groups (e.g., overall intervention content, tailoring methods, delivery mode, format, duration, setting, and session descriptions, and procedures for standardizing, fidelity of implementation, and blinding); rationale for control group type selected; sample size and attrition; and theoretical foundation.ResultsThe search yielded 43 publications; about one-third of these had an inactive control condition, which is considered a weak study design. Nearly two-thirds of reviewed studies had an active control condition considered a stronger research design; however, many failed to report one or more key elements of the intervention, especially for the control condition. None of the experimental and control group treatments were sufficiently detailed to permit replication of the nutrition education interventions studied.ConclusionsFindings advocate for improved intervention study design and more complete reporting of nutrition education interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0546-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research

Byrd‐Bredbenner

Spaccarotella

et al. 2017

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 Calories from solid fats, alcohol, and added sugars; threshold for counting alcohol is .28 g/d. 10 HEI-2010 total score minus specified component. is, no single linear combination of the 12 components explained a significant amount of the variation in the data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The HEI can be used for a variety of applications, including population monitoring (4,5); epidemiologic research (6,7); and evaluations of the food environment (8,9), food assistance packages, nutrition interventions (10), and the relation between diet cost and diet quality (11,12). The HEI-2010 is an updated version of the index that reflects the 2010 Dietary Guidelines (13).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Healthy Eating Index-2010 Is a Valid and Reliable Measure of Diet Quality According to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Guenther

Kirkpatrick

Reedy

et al. 2014

The Journal of Nutrition

660

606

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Healthy Eating Index (HEI), a measure of diet quality, was updated to reflect the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the accompanying USDA Food Patterns. To assess the validity and reliability of the HEI-2010, exemplary menus were scored and 2 24-h dietary recalls from individuals aged ≥2 y from the 2003-2004 NHANES were used to estimate multivariate usual intake distributions and assess whether the HEI-2010 1) has a distribution wide enough to detect meaningful differences in diet quality among individuals, 2) distinguishes between groups with known differences in diet quality by using t tests, 3) measures diet quality independently of energy intake by using Pearson correlation coefficients, 4) has >1 underlying dimension by using principal components analysis (PCA), and 5) is internally consistent by calculating Cronbach's coefficient α. HEI-2010 scores were at or near the maximum levels for the exemplary menus. The distribution of scores among the population was wide (5th percentile = 31.7; 95th percentile = 70.4). As predicted, men's diet quality (mean HEI-2010 total score = 49.8) was poorer than women's (52.7), younger adults' diet quality (45.4) was poorer than older adults' (56.1), and smokers' diet quality (45.7) was poorer than nonsmokers' (53.3) (P < 0.01). Low correlations with energy were observed for HEI-2010 total and component scores (|r| ≤ 0.21). Cronbach's coefficient α was 0.68, supporting the reliability of the HEI-2010 total score as an indicator of overall diet quality. Nonetheless, PCA indicated multiple underlying dimensions, highlighting the fact that the component scores are equally as important as the total. A comparable reevaluation of the HEI-2005 yielded similar results. This study supports the validity and the reliability of both versions of the HEI.

show abstract

“…NRF, Nutrient-Rich Foods. needed to confirm that nutrient density signposting can lead to positive changes in consumer food purchase behavior (26).…”

Section: Building Healthier Dietsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrient density: principles and evaluation tools

Drewnowski¹,

Fulgoni

2014

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

153

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutrient profiling is the technique of rating or classifying foods on the basis of their nutritional value. Foods that supply relatively more nutrients than calories are defined as nutrient dense. Nutrient profile models calculate the content of key nutrients per 100 g, 100 kcal, or per serving size of food. For maximum effectiveness, nutrient profile models need to be transparent, based on publicly accessible nutrient composition data, and validated against independent measures of a healthy diet. These rigorous scientific standards were applied to the development of the Nutrient-Rich Foods (NRF) family of nutrient profile models. First, the NRF models included nutrients to encourage as well as nutrients to limit. Second, NRF model performance was repeatedly tested against the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), an independent measure of a healthy diet. HEI values were calculated for participants in the 1999-2002 NHANES. Models based on 100 kcal and serving sizes performed better than those based on 100 g. Formulas based on sums and means performed better than those based on ratios. The final NRF9.3 index was based on 9 beneficial nutrients (protein; fiber; vitamins A, C, and E; calcium; iron; potassium; and magnesium) and on 3 nutrients to limit (saturated fat, added sugar, and sodium). Higher NRF9.3 scores were associated with lower energy density and more nutrient-rich diets. The nutrient density of foods, paired with a comprehensive program of consumer education, can become the foundation of dietary recommendations and guidelines.

show abstract

Effect of a Nutrient Rich Foods Consumer Education Program: Results from the Nutrition Advice Study

Cited by 41 publications

References 17 publications

Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research

Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research

The Healthy Eating Index-2010 Is a Valid and Reliable Measure of Diet Quality According to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Nutrient density: principles and evaluation tools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About