↓ Skip to main content

Innovative video tailoring for dietary change: final results of the Good for you! cluster randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, October 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
Innovative video tailoring for dietary change: final results of the Good for you! cluster randomized trial
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12966-015-0282-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim M. Gans, Patricia Markham Risica, Akilah Dulin-Keita, Jennifer Mello, Mahin Dawood, Leslie O. Strolla, Ofer Harel

Abstract

Effective, low-cost approaches are needed to enhance dietary behavior change. While both video and tailoring technology have been effective interventions to improve diet, these approaches have never been combined to study the effectiveness of tailored videos. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the results of Good For You!, a randomized trial that tested the efficacy of innovative, individually tailored videos in helping worksite employees decrease dietary fat and increase fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake. Worksites were matched on approximate size, type of company and workforce composition and randomized to one of three experimental conditions: Non-Tailored written information (NT) (n = 14), Tailored Written information (TW) (n = 14), or Tailored Written + Tailored Video (TW + TV) (n = 15). Evaluation was conducted at baseline, 4 and 7 months. We used the NCI Fat Screener and an adapted Food Habits Questionnaire (FHQ) to estimate fat intake and fat-related behaviors, the NCI F&V Screener and F&V Habits Questionnaire (FVHQ) to measure F&V intake and behaviors. Generalized linear models were examined for all outcome measurements. 2525 worksite employees were recruited. At 4 months, dietary fat intake decreased significantly more for TW (-2.95 %) and TW + TV (-3.14 %) compared with NT (-2.42 %). FHQ scores decreased significantly more for TW + TV than the other two groups. Fruit intake increased the most for TW + TV compared to NT and TW. Both TW (1.30 cups) and TW + TV (1.59 cups) increased F&V intake significantly more than NT (0.78 cups). TW + TV showed the largest increase in F&V behaviors on the FVFQ. At 8 months, dietary fat change continued to be significantly better for TW + TV (-3.48 %) than NT (3.01 %). F&V intake increased significantly more for the TW + TV group (1.38 cups) compared to the NT group (1.04 cups) and FVHQ changes were significantly greater in TW + TV and TW than for NT. The tailored intervention participants were more likely to decrease fat and increase F&V intake. The TW + TV group was generally the stronger of the two tailored interventions, especially at the longer term follow-up, demonstrating the promise of tailored video as an intervention to change eating habits. Future studies should explore newer channels and technologies in addition to DVDs for delivering tailored video interventions such as the internet and smart phones. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00301678.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 39 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 15%
Psychology 16 10%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 47 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,745,902
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#987
of 1,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,611
of 278,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 278,126 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.