↓ Skip to main content

From action planning and plan enactment to fruit consumption: moderated mediation effects

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
From action planning and plan enactment to fruit consumption: moderated mediation effects
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4838-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie Kasten, Liesbeth van Osch, Sander Matthijs Eggers, Hein de Vries

Abstract

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. This study was a self-reported longitudinal online survey study. A total of 428 participants filled in a survey, measuring demographic factors (e.g. gender, age, education level), several socio-cognitive constructs (i.e. attitudes, self-efficacy, habit, action planning, plan enactment), and fruit consumption, at three points in time (baseline, after 1 month, and after 3 months). Mediation and moderated mediation analyses were used to investigate the planning-plan enactment- fruit consumption relationship. Up to 70% of the participants reported to have enacted their T1 action plans at T2. Action planning on fruit consumption was fully mediated by plan enactment (Hypothesis 1). All four proposed moderators (i.e. intention, self-efficacy, habit to consume fruit, and habit to consume snacks) significantly influenced the mediation (Hypotheses 2a-2d). Mediation of plan enactment was only present with high levels of intention, high levels of self-efficacy, strong habits to eat fruit, and weak habits to eat snacks. The study suggests the importance of plan enactment for fruit consumption. Furthermore, it emphasizes the necessity of facilitating factors. High levels of intention, self-efficacy and a strong habit to consume fruit clearly aid the enactment of action plans. This suggests that when these factors are moderately low, plan enactment may fail and thus an intervention may require first steps to foster these moderating factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Professor 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 18 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,572,275
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,625
of 14,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,445
of 327,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#114
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 327,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.