Mixed methods evaluation of a randomized control pilot trial targeting sugar-sweetened beverage behaviors.

Jamie Zoellner, Emily Cook, Yvonnes Chen, Wen You, Brenda Davy, Paul Estabrooks
{"title":"Mixed methods evaluation of a randomized control pilot trial targeting sugar-sweetened beverage behaviors.","authors":"Jamie Zoellner,&nbsp;Emily Cook,&nbsp;Yvonnes Chen,&nbsp;Wen You,&nbsp;Brenda Davy,&nbsp;Paul Estabrooks","doi":"10.4236/ojpm.2013.31007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Excessive sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and low health literacy skills have emerged as two public health concerns in the United States (US); however, there is limited research on how to effectively address these issues among adults. As guided by health literacy concepts and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), this randomized controlled pilot trial applied the RE-AIM framework and a mixed methods approach to examine a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intervention (SipSmartER), as compared to a matched-contact control intervention targeting physical activity (MoveMore). Both 5-week interventions included two interactive group sessions and three support telephone calls. Executing a patient-centered developmental process, the primary aim of this paper was to evaluate patient feedback on intervention content and structure. The secondary aim was to understand the potential reach (i.e., proportion enrolled, representativeness) and effectiveness (i.e. health behaviors, theorized mediating variables, quality of life) of SipSmartER. Twenty-five participants were randomized to SipSmartER (n=14) or MoveMore (n=11). Participants' intervention feedback was positive, ranging from 4.2-5.0 on a 5-point scale. Qualitative assessments reavealed several opportunties to improve clarity of learning materials, enhance instructions and communication, and refine research protocols. Although SSB consumption decreased more among the SipSmartER participants (-256.9 ± 622.6 kcals), there were no significant group differences when compared to control participants (-199.7 ± 404.6 kcals). Across both groups, there were significant improvements for SSB attitudes, SSB behavioral intentions, and two media literacy constructs. The value of using a patient-centered approach in the developmental phases of this intervention was apparent, and pilot findings suggest decreased SSB may be achieved through targeted health literacy and TPB strategies. Future efforts are needed to examine the potential public health impact of a large-scale trial to address health literacy and reduce SSB.</p>","PeriodicalId":64464,"journal":{"name":"预防医学期刊(英文)","volume":"3 1","pages":"51-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755775/pdf/nihms457511.pdf","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"预防医学期刊(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpm.2013.31007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

This Excessive sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and low health literacy skills have emerged as two public health concerns in the United States (US); however, there is limited research on how to effectively address these issues among adults. As guided by health literacy concepts and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), this randomized controlled pilot trial applied the RE-AIM framework and a mixed methods approach to examine a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intervention (SipSmartER), as compared to a matched-contact control intervention targeting physical activity (MoveMore). Both 5-week interventions included two interactive group sessions and three support telephone calls. Executing a patient-centered developmental process, the primary aim of this paper was to evaluate patient feedback on intervention content and structure. The secondary aim was to understand the potential reach (i.e., proportion enrolled, representativeness) and effectiveness (i.e. health behaviors, theorized mediating variables, quality of life) of SipSmartER. Twenty-five participants were randomized to SipSmartER (n=14) or MoveMore (n=11). Participants' intervention feedback was positive, ranging from 4.2-5.0 on a 5-point scale. Qualitative assessments reavealed several opportunties to improve clarity of learning materials, enhance instructions and communication, and refine research protocols. Although SSB consumption decreased more among the SipSmartER participants (-256.9 ± 622.6 kcals), there were no significant group differences when compared to control participants (-199.7 ± 404.6 kcals). Across both groups, there were significant improvements for SSB attitudes, SSB behavioral intentions, and two media literacy constructs. The value of using a patient-centered approach in the developmental phases of this intervention was apparent, and pilot findings suggest decreased SSB may be achieved through targeted health literacy and TPB strategies. Future efforts are needed to examine the potential public health impact of a large-scale trial to address health literacy and reduce SSB.

针对含糖饮料行为的随机对照试验的混合方法评价。
过量的含糖饮料(SSB)消费和低健康素养技能已成为美国的两个公共卫生问题(US);然而,关于如何在成年人中有效解决这些问题的研究有限。在健康素养概念和计划行为理论(TPB)的指导下,本随机对照试点试验应用RE-AIM框架和混合方法方法来检查含糖饮料(SSB)干预(SipSmartER)与以身体活动为目标的匹配接触控制干预(MoveMore)。两项为期5周的干预都包括两次互动式小组会议和三次支持电话。执行以患者为中心的发展过程,本文的主要目的是评估患者对干预内容和结构的反馈。第二个目的是了解SipSmartER的潜在覆盖范围(即入组比例、代表性)和有效性(即健康行为、理论化的中介变量、生活质量)。25名参与者被随机分配到SipSmartER (n=14)或MoveMore (n=11)组。参与者的干预反馈是积极的,在5分制中从4.2到5.0不等。定性评估揭示了提高学习材料清晰度、加强指导和交流以及完善研究方案的若干机会。虽然SipSmartER参与者的SSB消耗减少更多(-256.9±622.6 kcal),但与对照组参与者(-199.7±404.6 kcal)相比,没有显著的组差异。在两组中,SSB态度、SSB行为意图和两种媒体素养结构都有显著改善。在该干预措施的发展阶段使用以患者为中心的方法的价值是显而易见的,试点结果表明,通过有针对性的健康素养和TPB战略可以减少SSB。未来需要努力检查大规模试验对解决健康素养和减少SSB的潜在公共卫生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
407
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书