Innovative video tailoring for dietary change: final results of the Good for you! cluster randomized trial

Gans, Kim M.; Risica, Patricia Markham; Dulin‐Keita, Akilah; Mello, Jennifer; Dawood, Mahin; Strolla, Leslie O.; Harel, Ofer

doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0282-5

Cited by 18 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple dietary outcomes were collected in most of the studies included in the meta-analysis, including: total fat ( n = 11) ( 24 , 27 – 32 , 36 , 41 , 45 , 46 ), saturated fat ( n = 8) ( 24 , 29 , 34 , 36 , 39 , 42 – 44 , 47 ), fruit ( n = 8) ( 27 , 28 , 32 , 35 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 49 ), vegetables ( n = 9) ( 27 , 28 , 32 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 49 ), fruit and vegetables together ( n = 7) ( 23 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 37 , 44 , 49 ), and assorted others ( n = 7) ( 35 , 42 – 44 , 47 – 49 ). No studies included fiber as an outcome.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review and meta-analysis of remotely delivered interventions using self-monitoring or tailored feedback to change dietary behavior

Teasdale

Elhussein

Butcher

et al. 2018

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSelf-monitoring (SM) of diet and tailored feedback (TF) have been suggested as tools for changing dietary behavior. New technologies allow users to monitor behavior remotely, potentially improving reach, adherence, and outcomes.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to address the following question: are remotely delivered standalone (i.e., no human contact) interventions that use SM or TF effective in changing eating behaviors?DesignFive databases were searched in October 2016 (updated in September 2017). Only randomized controlled trials published after 1990 were included. Trials could include any adult population with no history of disordered eating which delivered an SM or TF intervention without direct contact and recorded actual dietary consumption as an outcome. Three assessors independently screened the search results. Two reviewers extracted the study characteristics, intervention details, and outcomes, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. Results were converted to standardized mean differences and incorporated into a 3-level (individuals and outcomes nested in studies) random effects meta-analysis.ResultsTwenty-six studies containing 21,262 participants were identified. The majority of the studies were judged to be unclear or at high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed dietary improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group with a standardized mean difference of 0.17 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.24; P < 0.0001). The I2 statistic for the meta-analysis was 0.77, indicating substantial heterogeneity in results. A “one study removed” sensitivity analysis showed that no single study excessively influenced the results.ConclusionsStandalone interventions containing self-regulatory methods have a small but significant effect on dietary behavior, and integrating these elements could be important in future interventions. However, there was substantial variation in study results that could not be explained by the characteristics we explored, and there were risk-of-bias concerns with the majority of studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review and meta-analysis of remotely delivered interventions using self-monitoring or tailored feedback to change dietary behavior

Teasdale

Elhussein

Butcher

et al. 2018

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Website documented participant visits. N = 138 baseline; 122 6-month follow-up, 116 12-month follow-upAttrition:12% at 6 months; 16% at 12 monthsTreatment: At the baseline interview, older workers were given printed health-promotion materials listinglocal health-promotion programs and services.Ratcliffe et al, 2011 [61] N = 170 pretest; 137 post-testAttrition: 19%Treatment: Middle school science class students received regular health and science instruction plus 1-h/week garden-based group sessions for 13 weeks; for each session, 20 min were in the classroom or garden focusing on curricular and gardening activities, 40 min were hands-on gardening experiences, including planting, tending, harvesting, preparing and eating. Community events included a “salad day” for students to serve peers lettuce they had grown and a Saturday “garden party” for friends and family. N = 150 pretest; 99 post-test Attrition: 34%Treatment: Middle school students covered same health and science learning objectives, but no gardening-related activities.Gans et al, 2015 [54]Experimental Group 1 N = 897Attrition:16% a (no difference between groups)Treatment: Worksite employees mailed 3 sets of tailored written materials (mailed 1 week after baseline measures, 4 weeks after first mailing, and 4 weeks after second mailing) focusing on increasing F/V and decreasing fat intake; tailoring based on baseline data (F/V and fat intake, participant interest) and 2 other brief “re-tailoring” assessments (1 after second and third mailing). Participants received 28 tailored topics split over the 3 mailings out of 56 possible topics.Experimental Group 2 N = 811Attrition:16% a (no difference between groups)Treatment: Worksite employees received same materials as Experimental Group 1 as well as 3 1-h tailored nutrition-related videotapes with 24 segments of 46 possible. N = 817Attrition:16% a (no difference between groups)Treatment: Worksite employees mailed 3 sets of traditional (non-tailored), nationally available nutrition education and wellness brochures with content similar to that of the Experimental Groups.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a few cases, researchers provided a table or figure listing concepts/topics/objectives addressed in each session/interaction for the experimental group [40, 41, 54, 61, 62]. Only 2 studies provided a table describing the content of both the experimental and control treatments [46, 49].…”

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

“…The website also includes a tailored program titled “Are you eating right?” that provides employees with individually tailored information to help them eat more F&V. The content was modified from a previous tailored F&V intervention entitled Good For You [80]. Employees answer a brief survey about their F&V consumption including questions about stage of change, attitudes, barriers and F&V habits at meals and snacks.…”

Section: Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-level intervention in worksites to increase fruit and vegetable access and intake: Rationale, design and methods of the ‘Good to Go’ cluster randomized trial

Risica

Gorham

Dionne

et al. 2018

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption is an important contributor to chronic disease prevention. However, most Americans do not eat adequate amounts. The worksite is an advantageous setting to reach large, diverse segments of the population with interventions to increase F&V intake, but research gaps exist. No studies have evaluated the implementation of mobile F&V markets at worksites nor compared the effectiveness of such markets with or without nutrition education. Methods This paper describes the protocol for Good to Go (GTG), a cluster randomized trial to evaluate F&V intake change in employees from worksites randomized into three experimental arms: discount, fresh F&V markets (Access Only arm); markets plus educational components including campaigns, cooking demonstrations, videos, newsletters, and a web site (Access Plus arm); and an attention placebo comparison intervention on physical activity and stress reduction (Comparison). Secondary aims include: 1) Process evaluation to determine costs, reach, fidelity, and dose as well as the relationship of these variables with changes in F&V intake; 2) Applying a mediating variable framework to examine relationships of psychosocial factors/determinants with changes in F&V consumption; and 3) Cost effectiveness analysis of the different intervention arms. Discussion The GTG study will fill important research gaps in the field by implementing a rigorous cluster randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of an innovative environmental intervention providing access and availability to F&V at the worksite and whether this access intervention is further enhanced by accompanying educational interventions. GTG will provide an important contribution to public health research and practice. Trial registration number NCT02729675, ClinicalTrials.gov

show abstract

Innovative video tailoring for dietary change: final results of the Good for you! cluster randomized trial

Cited by 18 publications

References 49 publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of remotely delivered interventions using self-monitoring or tailored feedback to change dietary behavior

Systematic review and meta-analysis of remotely delivered interventions using self-monitoring or tailored feedback to change dietary behavior

Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research

A multi-level intervention in worksites to increase fruit and vegetable access and intake: Rationale, design and methods of the ‘Good to Go’ cluster randomized trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About