↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0546-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carol Byrd-Bredbenner, FanFan Wu, Kim Spaccarotella, Virginia Quick, Jennifer Martin-Biggers, Yingting Zhang

Abstract

Well-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. A 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. The 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. Findings advocate for improved intervention study design and more complete reporting of nutrition education interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 23%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 42 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 13%
Psychology 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Sports and Recreations 8 5%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 50 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,761,605
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,170
of 1,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,766
of 312,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#34
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,937 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.