↓ Skip to main content

Cluster randomized controlled trial of a mobile market intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intake among adults in lower-income communities in North Carolina

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
Cluster randomized controlled trial of a mobile market intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intake among adults in lower-income communities in North Carolina
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0637-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucia A. Leone, Gina L. Tripicchio, Lindsey Haynes-Maslow, Jared McGuirt, Jacqueline S. Grady Smith, Janelle Armstrong-Brown, Ziya Gizlice, Alice Ammerman

Abstract

Poorer diets and subsequent higher rates of chronic disease among lower-income individuals may be partially attributed to reduced access to fresh fruits and vegetables (F&V) and other healthy foods. Mobile markets are an increasingly popular method for providing access to F&V in underserved communities, but evaluation efforts are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of Veggie Van (VV), a mobile produce market, on F&V intake in lower-income communities using a group randomized controlled trial. VV is a mobile produce market that sells reduced-cost locally grown produce and offers nutrition and cooking education. We recruited 12 sites in lower-income communities in North Carolina (USA) to host VV, randomizing them to receive VV immediately (intervention) or after the 6-month study period (delayed intervention control). Participants at each site completed baseline and follow-up surveys including F&V intake, perceived access to fresh F&V and self-efficacy for purchasing, preparing and eating F&V. We used multiple linear regression to calculate adjusted differences in outcomes while controlling for baseline values, education and clustering within site. Among 142 participants who completed the follow-up, baseline F&V intake was 3.48 cups/day for control and 3.33 for intervention. At follow-up, adjusted change in F&V consumption was 0.95 cups/day greater for intervention participants (p = 0.005), but was attenuated to 0.51 cups per day (p = 0.11) after removing extreme values. VV customers increased their F&V consumption by 0.41 cups/day (n = 30) compared to a 0.25 cups/day decrease for 111 non-customers (p = 0.04). Intervention participants did not show significant improvements in perceived access to fresh F&V, but increased their self-efficacy for working more F&V into snacks (p = 0.02), making up a vegetable dish with what they had on hand (p = 0.03), and cooking vegetables in a way that is appealing to their family (p = 0.048). Mobile markets may help improve F&V intake in lower-income communities. Clinicaltrials.gov ID# NCT03026608 retrospectively registered January 2, 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 54 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Social Sciences 18 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 64 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,136,475
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,074
of 1,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,436
of 441,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,939 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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 441,866 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.