| Literature DB >> 29058594 |
Stefanie Kasten1,2, Liesbeth van Osch3,4, Sander Matthijs Eggers3,4, Hein de Vries3,4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sufficient fruit consumption is beneficial for a healthy live. While many Dutch adults intent to eat the recommended amount of fruit, only 5-10% of the population actually adheres to the recommendation. One mechanism that can help to narrow this gap between intention and actual fruit consumption is action planning. However, action planning is only assumed to be effective if plans are enacted. This study assessed which action plans are made and enacted, and further aimed to investigate two main hypotheses: 1. the effect of action planning (at T1) on fruit consumption (at T2) is mediated by plan enactment (at T3); 2. positive intentions (2a), high self-efficacy (2b) and a strong habit to eat fruit (2c) enhance the mediation of plan enactment, whereas a strong habit to eat snacks (2d) hinders the mediation of plan enactment.Entities:
Keywords: Action planning; Fruit consumption; Moderated mediation; Plan enactment
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29058594 PMCID: PMC5651584 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4838-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Sample characteristics
| At Baseline T1 ( | At first follow-up T2 ( | At second follow-up T3 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years: | 47.83 (15.98; 19–87) | ||
| Gender: female (%) | 53.3 | ||
| Education (%): | |||
| Low | 26.3 | ||
| Medium | 42.5 | ||
| High | 31.2 | ||
| Fruit consumption (pieces per week): | 8.33 (6.71) | ||
| Intentiona: | 5.20 (1.41) | ||
| Self-efficacya: | 5.11 (1.25) | ||
| Habit to eat fruita: | 4.62 (1.70) | ||
| Habit to eat snacksa: | 2.74 (1.51) | ||
| Action planninga: | 4.52 (1.22) | ||
| Plan enactmentb: | 2.00 (0.68) | ||
| Fruit consumption (pieces per week): | 8.21 (6.71) | ||
aMeasured on a scale ranging from 1 to 7
bMeasured on a scale ranging from 1 to 4
Frequencies of action plans and their enactment
| Participants that made plan at T1 in % ( | Participants that enacted their plan at T2 in % ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Action plan 1: “I am planning to buy more fruit” | 54.4 (312) | 50.0 (156) |
| Action plan 2: “I am planning to eat fruit at a fixed time of the day” | 51.2 (294) | 69.4 (204) |
| Action plan 3: “I am planning to put a fruit basket on the table” | 45.8 (263) | 65.8 (173) |
| Action plan 4: “I am planning to take fruit along when leaving the house (e.g. to work)” | 57.8 (332) | 69.3 (230) |
| Action plan 5: “I am planning to replace unhealthy snacks with fruit” | 47.9 (275) | 68.3 (174) |
Correlations of plan enactment
| Pearson correlation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Fruit consumption T3 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 2. Fruit consumption T1 | .76c | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 3. Intention T1 | .34c | .40c | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 4. Self-efficacy T1 | .57c | .63c | .54c | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 5. Habit snack T1 | -.23c | -.21c | −.07 | -.26c | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 6. Habit fruit T1 | .64c | .72c | .44c | .77c | -.26c | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 7. Mean APa T1 | .31c | .38c | .59c | .55c | −.06 | .52c | 1 | |||||||||||
| 8. APa 1: | .10c | .09c | .52c | .30c | .02 | .22c | .68c | 1 | ||||||||||
| 9. APa 2: | .37c | .44c | .46c | .50c | -.10c | .46c | .69c | .31c | 1 | |||||||||
| 10. APa 3: | .12c | .20c | .31c | .33c | −.08 | .33c | .72c | .35c | .35c | 1 | ||||||||
| 11. APa 4: | .28c | .34c | .39c | .41c | −.03 | .45c | .77c | .39c | .46c | .42c | 1 | |||||||
| 12. APa 5: | .27c | .29c | .48c | .46c | −.03 | .40 | .75c | .49c | .38c | .41c | .47c | 1 | ||||||
| 13. Mean PEb T2 | .46c | .50c | .40c | .48c | -.14c | .55c | .63c | .31c | .43c | .50c | .55c | .48c | 1 | |||||
| 14. PEb of APa 1 T2 | .07 | −.01 | .18c | .04 | .04 | .02 | .28c | .42c | .05 | .18c | .16c | .24c | .42c | 1 | ||||
| 15. PEb of APa 2 T2 | .53c | .59c | .29c | .50c | -.22c | .61 | .38c | .07 | .52c | .19c | .33c | .25c | .64c | −.04 | 1 | |||
| 16. PEb of APa 3 T2 | .11c | .17c | .16c | .18c | −.07 | .23c | .39c | .13c | .17c | .59c | .24c | .25c | .62c | .15c | .19c | 1 | ||
| 17. PEb of APa 4 T2 | .33c | .39c | .28c | .37c | −.04 | .42c | .46c | .15c | .30c | .24c | .62c | .33c | .73c | .12c | .41c | .23c | 1 | |
| 18. PEb of APa 5 T2 | .37c | .35c | .37c | .37c | -.11c | .38c | .47c | .29c | .27c | .30c | .37c | .48c | .72c | .30c | .32c | .36c | .52c | 1 |
a AP Action plan
b PE Plan enactment
csig. at α < .05
Fig. 1Mediation effects of plan enactment
Regression models testing moderated mediationa
| Moderators | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intention | Self-efficacy | Habit Fruit | Habit Snacks | |||||
| Coef |
| Coef |
| Coef |
| Coef |
| |
| Conditional indirect effectsb | ||||||||
| Level = 1 | .46 | .05–1.02 | −.05 | −.56–.14 | −.01 | −.28–.16 | .70*** | .37–1.08 |
| Level = 2 | .49* | .15–.94 | −.01 | −.48–.20 | .04 | −.23–.23 | .54*** | .31–.81 |
| Level = 3 | .51** | .21–.88 | .07 | −.29–.32 | .12 | −.12–.31 | .40*** | .18–.63 |
| Level = 4 | .53*** | .29–.79 | .21 | −.07–.41 | .23* | . 04–.44 | .28* | .01–.56 |
| Level = 5 | .53*** | .30–.78 | .39*** | .19–.61 | .38*** | .18–.62 | .18 | −.14–.54 |
| Level = 6 | .53*** | .23–.87 | .61*** | .35–.93 | .57*** | .29–.90 | .09 | −.31–.51 |
| Level = 7 | .51* | .07–1.00 | .89*** | .43–1.43 | .79*** | .37–1.29 | .02 | −.44–.50 |
a:Probed values based on the Johnson-Neyman technique, with bootstrapped confidence intervals (5000 samples)
b: All analysis were corrected for baseline fruit consumption, sex, age and educational level
*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001