| Literature DB >> 25890060 |
Debbe Thompson1, Riddhi Bhatt2, Isabel Vazquez3, Karen W Cullen4, Janice Baranowski5, Tom Baranowski6, Yan Liu7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child fruit and vegetable intake is below recommended levels, increasing risk for chronic disease. Interventions to influence fruit and vegetable intake among youth have had mixed effects. Innovative, theory-driven interventions are needed. Goal setting, enhanced by implementation intentions (i.e., plans tightly connected to a behavioral goal), may offer a solution. Action plans state "how" a goal will be achieved, while coping plans identify a potential barrier and corresponding solution. The research reported here evaluated the short- and long-term effects of goal setting enhanced with implementation intentions on child fruit and vegetable intake in a 10-episode, theoretically-grounded serious videogame promoting fruit and vegetables. This is one of the first studies to test the efficacy of implementation intentions on the dietary intake of healthy children.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25890060 PMCID: PMC4372224 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-015-0199-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Frequencies (n) and percentages (%) of baseline demographic characteristics for the study sample, stratified by intervention group
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 387 (100.00 ) | 97 ( 25.06 ) | 98 ( 25.03 ) | 95 ( 24.55 ) | 97 ( 25.06 ) |
|
| |||||
| Male | 183 ( 47.29 ) | 45 ( 24.59 ) | 48 ( 26.23 ) | 43 ( 23.50 ) | 47 ( 25.68 ) |
| Female | 204 ( 52.71 ) | 52 ( 25.49 ) | 50 ( 24.51 ) | 52 ( 25.49 ) | 50 ( 24.51 ) |
|
| |||||
| Hispanic | 106 ( 27.39 ) | 28 ( 26.42 ) | 27 ( 25.47 ) | 26 ( 24.53 ) | 25 ( 23.58 ) |
| African American | 102 ( 26.36 ) | 23 ( 22.55 ) | 32 ( 31.37 ) | 25 ( 24.51 ) | 22 ( 21.57 ) |
| White | 141 ( 36.43 ) | 33 ( 23.40 ) | 29 ( 20.57 ) | 37 ( 26.24 ) | 42 ( 29.79 ) |
| Other | 38 ( 9.82 ) | 13 ( 34.21 ) | 10 ( 26.32 ) | 7 ( 18.42 ) | 8 ( 21.05 ) |
|
| |||||
| Male | 15 ( 3.75 ) | 3 ( 20.00 ) | 3 ( 20.00 ) | 5 ( 33.33 ) | 4 ( 26.67 ) |
| Female | 385 ( 96.25 ) | 97 ( 25.19 ) | 97 ( 25.19 ) | 95 ( 24.68 ) | 96 ( 24.94 ) |
|
| |||||
| Hispanic | 102 ( 26.36 ) | 28 ( 27.45 ) | 24 ( 23.53 ) | 25 ( 24.51 ) | 25 ( 24.51 ) |
| African American | 102 ( 26.36 ) | 22 ( 21.57 ) | 33 ( 32.35 ) | 25 ( 24.51 ) | 22 ( 21.57 ) |
| White | 156 ( 40.31 ) | 35 ( 22.44 ) | 36 ( 23.08 ) | 40 ( 25.64 ) | 45 ( 28.85 ) |
| Other | 27 ( 6.98 ) | 12 ( 44.44 ) | 5 ( 18.52 ) | 5 ( 18.52 ) | 5 ( 18.52 ) |
|
| |||||
| Some College/Tech or Less | 124 ( 32.04 ) | 31 ( 25.00 ) | 38 ( 30.65 ) | 29 ( 23.39 ) | 26 ( 20.97 ) |
| College Graduate | 121 ( 31.27 ) | 26 ( 21.49 ) | 26 ( 21.49 ) | 30 ( 24.79 ) | 39 ( 32.23 ) |
| Post Graduate study | 142 ( 36.69 ) | 40 ( 28.17 ) | 34 ( 23.94 ) | 36 ( 25.35 ) | 32 ( 22.54 ) |
|
| |||||
| ≤ $61,000 | 164 ( 42.38 ) | 43 ( 26.22 ) | 44 ( 26.83 ) | 45 ( 27.44 ) | 32 ( 19.51 ) |
| > $61,000 | 223 ( 57.62 ) | 54 ( 24.22 ) | 54 ( 24.22 ) | 50 ( 22.42 ) | 65 ( 29.15 ) |
|
| |||||
| 20-39 | 173 ( 44.70 ) | 46 ( 26.59 ) | 46 ( 26.59 ) | 40 ( 23.12 ) | 41 ( 23.70 ) |
| 40-59 | 214 ( 55.30 ) | 51 ( 23.83 ) | 52 ( 24.30 ) | 55 ( 25.70 ) | 56 ( 26.17 ) |
|
| |||||
| Married | 300 ( 77.52 ) | 81 ( 27.00 ) | 73 ( 24.33 ) | 70 ( 23.33 ) | 76 ( 25.33 ) |
| Not Married | 87 ( 22.48 ) | 16 ( 18.39 ) | 25 ( 28.74 ) | 25 ( 28.74 ) | 21 ( 24.14 ) |
Figure 1Consort diagram of the randomization and inclusion process.
Adjusted means (standard error) for the Fruit and Vegetables Consumption (in servings), stratified by group and time (baseline, post 1, and Post 2) using repeated measures ANCOVA
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||
| Control | 1.86 ( 0.04 ) | 2.20 ( 0.04 ) | 1.89 ( 0.04 ) | 0.35 | 0.04 |
| Action | 1.64 ( 0.04 ) | 2.37 ( 0.04 ) | 2.32 ( 0.04 ) | 0.72*** | 0.68*** |
| Coping | 1.83 ( 0.04 ) | 2.31 ( 0.04 ) | 2.11 ( 0.05 ) | 0.48** | 0.28 |
| Both A & C | 2.11 ( 0.04 ) | 2.28 ( 0.04 ) | 2.05 ( 0.04 ) | 0.17 | −0.06 |
| Total | 1.84 ( 0.03 ) | 2.27 ( 0.03 ) | 2.07 ( 0.03 ) | 0.43 | 0.23 |
|
| |||||
| Control | 0.61 ( 0.04 ) | 0.84 ( 0.04 ) | 0.60 ( 0.04 ) | 0.23 | −0.01 |
| Action | 0.46 ( 0.04 ) | 0.82 ( 0.04 ) | 0.79 ( 0.04 ) | 0.35 | 0.33 |
| Coping | 0.54 ( 0.04 ) | 0.84 ( 0.04 ) | 0.67 ( 0.04 ) | 0.29 | 0.13 |
| Both A&C | 0.60 ( 0.04 ) | 0.90 ( 0.04 ) | 0.69 ( 0.04 ) | 0.29 | 0.09 |
| Total t*** | 0.54 ( 0.03 ) | 0.82 ( 0.03 ) | 0.67 ( 0.03 ) | 0.32** | 0.23* |
|
| |||||
| Control | 1.18 ( 0.04 ) | 1.26 ( 0.04 ) | 1.26 ( 0.04 ) | 0.08 | 0.07 |
| Action | 1.15 ( 0.04 ) | 1.47 ( 0.04 ) | 1.48 ( 0.04 ) | 0.32 | 0.33 |
| Coping | 1.24 ( 0.04 ) | 1.37 ( 0.04 ) | 1.38 ( 0.04 ) | 0.13 | 0.14 |
| Both A & C | 1.45 ( 0.04 ) | 1.34 ( 0.04 ) | 1.32 ( 0.04 ) | −0.10 | −0.13 |
| Total | 1.24 ( 0.03 ) | 1.36 ( 0.03 ) | 1.35 ( 0.03 ) | 0.12 | 0.11 |
Abbreviations: M(SE) = adjusted mean ( standard error), “g” = group; “t” = time, “gt” = the interaction of group by time, “ANCOVA” = Analysis of Covariance.
1: Repeated measures ANCOVA was adjusted for gender, race/ethnic group, total energy intake, and parent’s age, education level; adjusted means presented here were back-transformed to original scale (servings).
2: Change from baseline.
Significance level at *p < 0 .01, ** p < 0.001, *** p < 0.0001.