Effect of the Web-Based Intervention MyPlan 1.0 on Self-Reported Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Adults Who Visit General Practice: A Quasi-Experimental Trial

Jolien Plaete, Geert Crombez, Celien Van der Mispel, Maite Verloigne, Vicky Van Stappen, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Jolien Plaete, Geert Crombez, Celien Van der Mispel, Maite Verloigne, Vicky Van Stappen, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij

Abstract

Background: Web-based interventions typically have small intervention effects on adults' health behavior because they primarily target processes leading to an intention to change leaving individuals in an intention-behavior gap, they often occur without contact with health care providers, and a limited amount of feedback is provided only at the beginning of these interventions, but not further on in the behavior change process. Therefore, we developed a Web-based intervention ("MyPlan 1.0") to promote healthy behavior in adults. The intervention was based on a self-regulation perspective that also targets postintentional processes and guides individuals during all phases of behavior change.

Objective: The study investigated the effectiveness of MyPlan1.0 on fruit and vegetable intake of Flemish adults visiting general practice (3 groups: control group, intervention group recruited by researchers, and intervention group recruited and guided by general practitioners [GPs]). Second, it examined whether there was a larger intervention effect for the intervention group guided by GPs compared to the intervention group recruited by researchers.

Methods: Adults (≥ 18 years) were recruited in 19 Flemish general practices. In each general practice, patients were systematically allocated by a researcher either for the intervention group (researchers' intervention group) or the waiting-list control group that received general advice. In a third group, the GP recruited adults for the intervention (GPs intervention group). The two intervention groups filled in evaluation questionnaires and received MyPlan 1.0 for a behavior of choice (fruit, vegetable, or physical activity). The waiting-list control group filled in the evaluation questionnaires and received only general information. Self-reported fruit and vegetable intake were assessed at baseline (T0), 1 week (T1), and 1 month (T2) postbaseline. Three-level (general practice, adults, time) linear regression models were conducted in MLwiN.

Results: A total of 426 adults initially agreed to participate (control group: n=149; GPs' intervention group: n=41; researchers' intervention group: n=236). A high attrition rate was observed in both intervention groups (71.8%, 199/277) and in the control group (59.1%, 88/149). In comparison to no change in the control group, both the GPs' intervention group (fruit: χ(2)1=10.9, P=.004; vegetable: χ(2)1=5.3, P=.02) and the researchers' intervention group (fruit: χ(2)1=18.0, P=.001; vegetable: χ(2)1=12.8, P<.001) increased their intake of fruit and vegetables.

Conclusions: A greater increase in fruit and vegetable intake was found when the Web-based intervention MyPlan 1.0 was used compared to usual care of health promotion in general practice (ie, flyers with general information). However, further investigation on which (or combinations of which) behavior change techniques are effective, how to increase response rates, and the influence of delivery mode in routine practice is required.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02211040; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02211040 (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6f8yxTRii).

Keywords: Web-based intervention; dietary interventions; eHealth; fruit and vegetable intake; general practice; health promotion; primary prevention; self-regulation.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors are the developers of the intervention.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study procedure.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Participants' flow through study. DI: discontinued intervention; LTF: lost to follow-up.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Changes in fruit intake from baseline (T0) to postintervention (T2) in the three different groups.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Changes in vegetable intake from baseline (T0) to postintervention (T2) in the three different groups.

References

    1. Boeing H, Bechthold A, Bub A, Ellinger S, Haller D, Kroke A, Leschik-Bonnet E, Müller MJ, Oberritter H, Schulze M, Stehle P, Watzl B. Critical review: vegetables and fruit in the prevention of chronic diseases. Eur J Nutr. 2012 Sep;51(6):637–663. doi: 10.1007/s00394-012-0380-y.
    1. Word Health Organization. 2003. [2016-02-10]. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of joint WHO/FAO expert consultation
    1. Hall JN, Moore S, Harper SB, Lynch JW. Global variability in fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2009 May;36(5):402–409.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.029.
    1. Vandevijvere S, De Vriese S, Huybrechts I, Moreau M, Temme E, De Henauw S, De Backer G, Kornitzer M, Leveque A, Van Oyen H. The gap between food-based dietary guidelines and usual food consumption in Belgium, 2004. Public Health Nutr. 2009 Mar;12(3):423–431. doi: 10.1017/S1368980008002164.
    1. Norman GJ, Zabinski MF, Adams MA, Rosenberg DE, Yaroch AL, Atienza AA. A review of eHealth interventions for physical activity and dietary behavior change. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Oct;33(4):336–345. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.05.007.
    1. Pomerleau J, Lock K, Knai C, McKee M. Interventions designed to increase adult fruit and vegetable intake can be effective: a systematic review of the literature. J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2486–2495.
    1. Broekhuizen K, Kroeze W, van Poppel MN, Oenema A, Brug J. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored physical activity and dietary behavior promotion programs: an update. Ann Behav Med. 2012 Oct;44(2):259–286. doi: 10.1007/s12160-012-9384-3.
    1. Lustria ML, Cortese J, Noar SM, Glueckauf RL. Computer-tailored health interventions delivered over the Web: review and analysis of key components. Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Feb;74(2):156–173. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.023.
    1. Schwarzer R. Modeling health behavior change: how to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Appl Psychol. 2008 Jan;57(1):1–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00325.x.
    1. Karoly P. Mechanisms of self-regulation: a systems view. Annu Rev Psychol. 1993 Jan;44(1):23–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000323.
    1. Gollwitzer P, Sheeran P. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analyses of effects and processes. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2006;38:69–119. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1.
    1. Bélanger-Gravel A, Godin G, Amireault S. A meta-analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions on physical activity. Health Psychol Rev. 2013 Mar;7(1):23–54. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.560095.
    1. Pomaki G, Karoly P, Maes S. Linking goal progress to subjective well-being at work: the moderating role of goal-related self-efficacy and attainability. J Occup Health Psychol. 2009 Apr;14(2):206–218. doi: 10.1037/a0014605.
    1. Greaves CJ, Sheppard KE, Abraham C, Hardeman W, Roden M, Evans PH, Schwarz P. Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness in dietary and physical activity interventions. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:119. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-119.
    1. Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol. 2009 Nov;28(6):690–701. doi: 10.1037/a0016136.
    1. Lara J, Evans EH, O'Brien N, Moynihan PJ, Meyer TD, Adamson AJ, Errington L, Sniehotta FF, White M, Mathers JC. Association of behaviour change techniques with effectiveness of dietary interventions among adults of retirement age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med. 2014;12:177. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0177-3.
    1. Schneider F. Reach Out and Touch? Improving Reach and Use of an Internet-Delivered Lifestyle Intervention. Maastricht: Maastricht University, School for Public Health and Primary Care: CAPHRI, Department of Health Promotion; 2013. [2016-02-10]. .
    1. Meyer C, Ulbricht S, Gross B, Kästel L, Wittrien S, Klein G, Skoeries BA, Rumpf H, John U. Adoption, reach and effectiveness of computer-based, practitioner delivered and combined smoking interventions in general medical practices: a three-arm cluster randomized trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012 Feb 1;121(1-2):124–132. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.08.019.
    1. Spittaels H, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Implementation of an online tailored physical activity intervention for adults in Belgium. Health Promot Int. 2006 Dec;21(4):311–319. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dal030.
    1. Bull FC, Holt CL, Kreuter MW, Clark EM, Scharff D. Understanding the effects of printed health education materials: which features lead to which outcomes? J Health Commun. 2001;6(3):265–279. doi: 10.1080/108107301752384442.
    1. Ampt AJ, Amoroso C, Harris MF, McKenzie SH, Rose VK, Taggart JR. Attitudes, norms and controls influencing lifestyle risk factor management in general practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-10-59.
    1. Lawlor DA, Keen S, Neal RD. Can general practitioners influence the nation's health through a population approach to provision of lifestyle advice? Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Jun;50(455):455–459.
    1. Plaete J, Crombez G, DeSmet A, Deveugele M, Verloigne M, De Bourdeaudhuij I. What do general practitioners think about an online self-regulation programme for health promotion? Focus group interviews. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12875-014-0214-5.
    1. Plaete J, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Verloigne M, Oenema A, Crombez G. Systematic development of a self-regulation eHealth intervention to increase health behavior through general practice. JMIR ResProToc. 2015;4(4):e141. doi: 10.2196/resprot.4835.
    1. MyPlan 1.0. [2016-02-20]. .
    1. Vandelanotte C, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Acceptability and feasibility of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention using stages of change: project FAITH. Health Educ Res. 2003 Jun;18(3):304–317.
    1. Spittaels H, De Bourdeaudhuij BI, Vandelanotte C. Evaluation of a website-delivered computer-tailored intervention for increasing physical activity in the general population. Prev Med. 2007 Mar;44(3):209–217. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.11.010.
    1. Bhattarai N, Prevost AT, Wright AJ, Charlton J, Rudisill C, Gulliford MC. Effectiveness of interventions to promote healthy diet in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1203. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1203.
    1. Ball L, Leveritt M, Cass S, Chaboyer W. Effect of nutrition care provided by primary health professionals on adults' dietary behaviours: a systematic review. Fam Pract. 2015 Aug 19;:605–617. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmv067.
    1. Helgason AR, Lund KE. General practitioners' perceived barriers to smoking cessation-results from four Nordic countries. Scand J Public Health. 2002;30(2):141–147. doi: 10.1080/14034940210133799.
    1. Shakeshaft AP, Frankish CJ. Using patient-driven computers to provide cost-effective prevention in primary care: a conceptual framework. Health Promot Int. 2003 Mar;18(1):67–77.
    1. Brotons C, Björkelund C, Bulc M, Ciurana R, Godycki-Cwirko M, Jurgova E, Kloppe P, Lionis C, Mierzecki A, Piñeiro R, Pullerits L, Sammut MR, Sheehan M, Tataradze R, Thireos EA, Vuchak J. Prevention and health promotion in clinical practice: the views of general practitioners in Europe. Prev Med. 2005 May;40(5):595–601. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.07.020.
    1. Vogt F, Hall S, Marteau TM. General practitioners' and family physicians' negative beliefs and attitudes towards discussing smoking cessation with patients: a systematic review. Addiction. 2005 Oct;100(10):1423–1431. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01221.x.
    1. Eakin EG, Glasgow RE, Riley KM. Review of primary care-based physical activity intervention studies: effectiveness and implications for practice and future research. J Fam Pract. 2000 Feb;49(2):158–168.
    1. Reiff-Hekking S, Ockene JK, Hurley TG, Reed GW. Brief physician and nurse practitioner-delivered counseling for high-risk drinking. Results at 12-month follow-up. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jan;20(1):7–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.21240.x.
    1. Parekh S, Vandelanotte C, King D, Boyle FM. Improving diet, physical activity and other lifestyle behaviours using computer-tailored advice in general practice: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:108. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-108.
    1. Liang W, Shediac-Rizkallah MC, Celentano DD, Rohde C. A population-based study of age and gender differences in patterns of health-related behaviors. Am J Prev Med. 1999 Jul;17(1):8–17.
    1. Brouwer W, Oenema A, Raat H, Crutzen R, de Nooijer NJ, de Vries NK, Brug J. Characteristics of visitors and revisitors to an Internet-delivered computer-tailored lifestyle intervention implemented for use by the general public. Health Educ Res. 2010 Aug;25(4):585–595. doi: 10.1093/her/cyp063.
    1. Hjartåker A, Lund E. Relationship between dietary habits, age, lifestyle, and socio-economic status among adult Norwegian women. The Norwegian Women and Cancer Study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Aug;52(8):565–572.
    1. Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, Schmeichel BJ, Twenge JM, Nelson NM, Tice DM. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 May;94(5):883–898. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883.
    1. Parekh S, King D, Boyle FM, Vandelanotte C. Randomized controlled trial of a computer-tailored multiple health behaviour intervention in general practice: 12-month follow-up results. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11(1):41. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-41.
    1. Krebs P, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS. A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health behavior change. Prev Med. 2010;51(3-4):214–221. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.06.004.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever