| Literature DB >> 22545007 |
Natacha Toral1, Betzabeth Slater.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a six-month stage-based intervention on fruit and vegetable intake, regarding perceived benefits and barriers, and self-efficacy among adolescents.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22545007 PMCID: PMC3322369 DOI: 10.1100/2012/174640
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Comparability between the intervention and control groups, regarding baseline characteristics.
| Variables | Total | Control Group | Intervention Group |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % | ||
| Age | |||||||
| 11–13 yrs | 489 | 56.9% | 207 | 55.5% | 282 | 57.9% | 0.459 |
| 14–16 yrs | 365 | 42.4% | 163 | 43.7% | 202 | 41.5% | |
| 17–19 yrs | 6 | 0.7% | 3 | 0.8% | 3 | 0.6% | |
|
| |||||||
| Gender | |||||||
| Male | 348 | 40.5% | 135 | 36.2% | 213 | 43.7% | 0.030 |
| Female | 512 | 59.5% | 238 | 63.8% | 274 | 56.3% | |
|
| |||||||
| Family income | |||||||
| <2 BMMS* | 294 | 34.2% | 120 | 32.2% | 174 | 35.7% | 0.130 |
| 2–4.9 BMMS* | 286 | 33.2% | 118 | 31.6% | 168 | 34.5% | |
| ≥5 BMMS* | 200 | 23.3% | 100 | 26.8% | 100 | 20.5% | |
| Didn't know/no answer | 80 | 9.3% | 35 | 9.4% | 45 | 9.3% | |
|
| |||||||
| Nutritional status | |||||||
| Thinness | 23 | 2.6% | 8 | 2.2% | 15 | 3.1% | 0.544 |
| Adequate | 682 | 79.3% | 304 | 81.5% | 378 | 77.6% | |
| Overweight | 126 | 14.7% | 50 | 13.4% | 76 | 15.6% | |
| Obesity | 29 | 3.4% | 11 | 2.9% | 18 | 3.7% | |
|
| |||||||
| Fruit/vegetable intake | |||||||
| Adequate | 94 | 10.9% | 43 | 11.5% | 51 | 10.5% | 0.660 |
| Inadequate | 766 | 89.1% | 330 | 88.5% | 436 | 89.5% | |
|
| |||||||
| Stages of change | |||||||
| Precontemplation | 376 | 43.7% | 159 | 42.6% | 217 | 44.6% | 0.377 |
| Contemplation | 117 | 13.6% | 46 | 12.3% | 71 | 14.6% | |
| Preparation | 273 | 31.7% | 125 | 33.5% | 148 | 30.4% | |
| Action | 16 | 1.9% | 8 | 2.1% | 8 | 1.6% | |
| Maintenance | 78 | 9.1% | 35 | 9.4% | 43 | 8.8% | |
|
| |||||||
| Total |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
*BMMS: Brazilian minimum monthly salary.
Comparability between the intervention and control groups regarding fruit and vegetable intake and stages of change after the proposed intervention (analysis of the repeated measurements model using weighted minimum squares).
| Variables | Control Group | Intervention Group |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | ||
| Fruit/vegetable intake | |||||
| Adequate | 27 | 8.4% | 42 | 9.4% | 0.626 |
| Inadequate | 296 | 91.6% | 406 | 90.6% | |
|
| |||||
| Stages of change | |||||
| Precontemplation | 134 | 41.5% | 195 | 43.5% | 0.905 |
| Contemplation | 67 | 20.7% | 89 | 19.9% | |
| Preparation | 95 | 29.4% | 122 | 27.2% | |
| Action | 5 | 1.6% | 9 | 2.0% | |
| Maintenance | 22 | 6.8% | 33 | 7.4% | |
|
| |||||
| Total |
|
|
|
| |
Comparability between the intervention and control groups regarding decisional balance for benefits (“pros” scores) and barriers (“cons” scores) and self-efficacy, adjusted for sex and age, after the proposed intervention (analysis of covariance, ANCOVA).
| Variables | Control Group | Intervention Group |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard Error | Mean | Standard Error | ||
| Pros scores | 28.73 | 0.17 | 28.97 | 0.14 | 0.2885 |
| Cons scores | 13.50 | 0.16 | 13.33 | 0.13 | 0.4153 |
| Self-efficacy scores | 31.62 | 0.20 | 31.69 | 0.17 | 0.7749 |