↓ Skip to main content

Multilevel approaches to increase fruit and vegetable intake in low-income housing communities: final results of the ‘Live Well, Viva Bien’ cluster-randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, August 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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
400 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
Multilevel approaches to increase fruit and vegetable intake in low-income housing communities: final results of the ‘Live Well, Viva Bien’ cluster-randomized trial
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-018-0704-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim M. Gans, Patricia Markham Risica, Akilah Dulin Keita, Laura Dionne, Jennifer Mello, Kristen Cooksey Stowers, George Papandonatos, Shannon Whittaker, Gemma Gorham

Abstract

Fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake can reduce risks for chronic disease, but is much lower than recommended amounts in most Western populations, especially for those with low income levels. Rigorous research is needed on practical, cost-effective interventions that address environmental as well as personal determinants of F&V intake. This paper presents the results of a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 'Live Well, Viva Bien' (LWVB), a multicomponent intervention that included discount, mobile fresh F&V markets in conjunction with nutrition education. Fifteen subsidized housing sites in Providence County, Rhode Island (8 intervention and 7 control sites) were randomized using a random number generator. Of these, nine housed elderly and/or disabled residents and six housed families. A total of 1597 adult housing site residents (treatment n = 837; control n = 760) were enrolled (73% women, 54% Hispanic, 17% black, Mean age 54 years). A year-long multicomponent intervention including mobile F&V markets plus nutrition education (e.g. campaigns, DVDs, newsletters, recipes, and chef demonstrations) was implemented at intervention sites. Physical activity and stress interventions were implemented at control sites. Follow-up occurred at 6 and 12 months. The main outcome measure was F&V consumption measured by National Cancer Institute's 'Eating at America's Table All Day Screener'. From baseline to 12 months, the intervention group increased total F&V intake by 0.44 cups with the control group decreasing intake by 0.08 cups (p < .02). Results also showed an increased frequency of F&V eating behaviors compared to the control group (p < .01). There was a clear dose response effect of the F&V markets with participants who reported attending all or most of the markets increasing F&V intake by 2.1 cups and 0.86 cups, respectively compared with less than half cup increases for lower levels of market attendance (p < .05). Use of the DVDs, recipes and taste-testings was also associated with greater increases in F&V intake; however, use of other educational components was not. LWVB is the first cluster, randomized controlled trial to demonstrate the efficacy of year-round F&V markets on improving F&V intake for low-income adults, which provides an evidence-base to bolster the mission of mobile produce markets. Further, the results more broadly support investment in environmental changes to alleviate disparities in F&V consumption and diet-related health inequities. Clinicatrials.gov registration number: NCT02669472.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 400 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 400 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 15%
Student > Bachelor 40 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 9%
Researcher 32 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 5%
Other 62 16%
Unknown 151 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 64 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 12%
Social Sciences 31 8%
Psychology 25 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Other 56 14%
Unknown 166 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,421,429
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#903
of 1,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,604
of 334,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#25
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 334,213 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 84% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.