A. Physical activity |
| Japan | Overweight Japanese women [205] recruited from the general population (Adachi, 2007) |
C Self-help booklet | ? | 15-item | Self-rated physical activities (points 1 (bad)–3 (good) |
LT No significant effects |
| Overweight Japanese men [51] recruited from the general population (Tanaka, 2010) |
EXP1 C + self-monitoring of weight and walking | | Pedometer | Daily walking steps | |
|
EXP2 CT advice | | | | |
|
EXP3
f CT advice + self-monitoring of weight and walking | | | | |
| USA | Inactive participants [394] recruited through primary care providers |
C Generic HE | Yes | 7-Day PA | Leisure-time PA (min/week) |
MT No significant effects |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Recall | Non-leisure-time PA (min/week) | |
| USA | Women [156] (21–65) recruited from the general population |
C No intervention | Yes | Standardized activity inventory | MVPA (min/week) |
ST No significant effects |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | Walking (min/week) |
MT Significant effect on MVPA |
| | | | | ES: 0.24 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on walking |
| | | | | ES: 0.21 |
| USA | Women [31] (50–69 years) recruited through newspaper advertisement |
C Generic HE | Yes | Modified 7-day physical activity recall | MVPA (min/week) calories expended daily |
MT Significant effect on VO2 max |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Fitness walking test | Aerobic fitness (VO2 max in ml/kg/min), flexibility (cm) | ES: 0.42 |
| | | Sit-and-reach test | | |
| UK | Participants [77] (30–55 years) recruited through market research recruitment agency |
C No intervention | Yes | IPAQ | Overall PA (MET min/week) |
ST Significant effect on leisure-time PA |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Accelerometer | Leisure-time PA (MET min/week) |
Accelerometer data
|
| | | | Overall sitting time (h/week) | Significant effect on MPA (3–6 MET range) |
| | | | Weekday sitting time (h/week) | ES: N/A |
| | | | Weekend sitting time (h/week) | |
| USA | Women [511] (50–64) recruited from nutrition and PA program (WISEWOMAN) |
C Generic HE | ? | 31-item PAA questionnaire | Score from 31-item scale: not very active (0)–very active (42) |
LT No significant effect on PA score |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | |
| USA | Sedentary participants [239] (18–65) recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | 7-Day physical activity recall | | |
|
EXP1 CT advice (print-based) | | Actigraph | | |
|
EXP2 CT advice (telephone-based) | | Submaximal exercise threadmill test | MPA/VPA (min/week) |
MT Significant effect on PA in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | Aerobic fitness (VO2max in ml/kg/min) | ES: 0.46 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on PA in EXP1 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.39 |
| | | | |
MT No significant difference between EXP1 and EXP2 |
| | | | |
LT Significant effect on PA in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: N/A |
| | | | |
LT No significant effect on PA in EXP1 compared to C |
| | | | |
LT No significant difference between EXP1 and EXP2 |
| USA | Sedentary participants [249] (18+) from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | 7-Day physical activity recall | MPA/VPA (min/week) |
MT/LT No significant effect on MVPA |
|
EXP1 CT advice (internet) | | Submaximal exercise treadmill test | Aerobic fitness (VO2max in ml/kg/min) | |
|
EXP2 CT advice (print-based) | | | | |
| USA | Sedentary women [280] recruited from the general population |
C1 Generic HE | Yes | 7-Day physical activity recall | MPA/VPA (min/week) |
MT/LT No significant effect on MVPA |
|
C2 Self-help booklet | | | | |
|
EXP2 CT advice | | | | |
| The Netherlands | Participants [2,159] (>30) recruited from online research panel |
C No intervention | Yes | Short version of IPAQ | Self-rated PA level (scale from −2 to +2) |
ST Significant effect on % compliant to PA guideline in at-risk group (those who did not comply with the PA guidelines at baseline) |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | % compliant to PA guideline (moderate intensity PA for at least 30 min/day in at least 5 days/week) | ES: 0.16 |
| USA | Sedentary Latinas [93] (18–65) recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | 7-Day physical activity recall | MPA/VPA (min/week) |
MT No significant effect on MVPA |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | |
| USA | Participants [1400] at risk for at least one risk behavior (exercise, stress, BMI >25 kg/m2 and smoking) recruited from a major medical university |
C Health risk assessment | Yes | Self-reported level of exercise | % exercising moderately 30 min/day for at least 5 days/week |
MT Significant effect on % exercising moderately 30 min/day for at least 5 days/week in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
|
EXP1 C + coaching | | | | ES: N/A |
|
EXP2 C + transtheoretic model-based feedback | | | | |
| USA | Female college students [408] recruited from universities/colleges |
C Generic HE | Yes | US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey | MVPA (min/week) |
ST Significant effect on VPA in EXP2 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice (topic by choice) | | | VPA (min/week) | ES: 0.41 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (topic by expert) | | | | |
| The Netherlands | Participants [102] (20–40 years) recruited from worksites |
C Generic HE | ? | | LPA/MPA/VPA (MET min/week) |
MT/LT No significant effects |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Chester Step Test | Aerobic fitness (VO2max in ml/kg/min) | |
| The Netherlands | Participants [2,827] (18–65) recruited from companies and the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | SQUASH | Action moments/week |
MT Significant effect on PA of EXP1 compared to C |
| |
EXP1 CT advice (once delivered in 3 months (Smeets et al.)) | | | % compliant to PA guideline (moderate intensity PA for at least 30 min/day in at least 5 days/week) | ES: 0.12 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (3 times delivered in 9 months (De Vries et al.)) | | | |
LT Significant effect on PA and % compliance to PA guideline of EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.15 |
| | | | | ES: 0.14 |
| The Netherlands | Participants [487] (18–65 year) recruited from the general population |
C No intervention | Yes | SQUASH | Total PA (MET min/week) |
MT Significant effect on transport related PA and total PA among motivated participants |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | Transport related PA (MET min/week) | ES: 0.48 |
| | | | Leisure-time related PA (MET min/week) | ES: 0.49 |
| | | | Sports related PA (MET min/week) | |
| Belgium | Participants [434] (20–55 year) recruited through parents and staff of primary/secondary schools |
C No intervention |
Yes
| IPAQ | Total MVPA (min/week) |
MT Significant effect on transportation PA, leisure-time PA and weekday sitting time in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | Transportation PA (min/week) |
EXP2 compared to C
|
|
EXP2 CT advice + repeated feedback | | | Household PA (min/week) | ES (transportation PA): 0.21 |
| | | | Leisure-time PA (min/week) | ES (leisure-time PA): 0.52 |
| | | | Job-related PA (min/week) weekday sitting time (min/day) | ES (weekday sitting time): 1.58 |
| | | | Weekend sitting time (min/day) |
EXP1 compared to C
|
| | | | | ES (transportation PA): 0.18 |
| | | | | ES (leisure-time PA): 0.40 |
| | | | | ES (weekday sitting time): 1.62 |
| Belgium | Participants [526] (25–55 year) recruited from worksites |
C Generic HE |
Yes
| IPAQ | Total PA (min/week) |
MT No significant effects in EXP1 or EXP2 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Accelerometer | MVPA (min/week) | |
|
EXP2 CT advice + stage-of-change based emails | | | 30 min of PA on most days (%) | |
| USA | Participants [787] recruited from administration offices of a large healthcare organization |
C No intervention | Yes | Physical Activity Questionnaire adapted from Cross-Cultural Activity Patterns Questionnaire | Total PA (MET min/week) |
ST Significant effect on MPA, VPA, walking, and sedentary behavior |
| | | |
EXP1 CT advice |
MT Significant effect on MPA, walking, and sedentary behavior |
| | | | MPA (min/week) |
ST Significant effect on MPA, VPA, walking and sedentary behavior among those who chose the PA path of the intervention |
| | | | VPA (min/week) | ES: N/A |
| | | | Walking (min/week | |
| | | | Sedentary behavior (min/week) | |
| The Netherlands | Participants [1,629] (45–70) recruited from general practices |
C1 No intervention | Yes | 28-item modified Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors | PA (hours/week) |
MT Significant effect of EXP1 compared to C1 |
|
C2 Coaching | | | | ES: 0.20 |
|
C3 C2 + EXP1 | | | |
LT (~11 months) Significant effect of EXP1 compared to C1 and C3 |
|
EXP1 TC advice | | | | ES (EXP1-C1): 0.32 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C3): 0.15 |
| | | | |
LT (~18 months) no significant effects |
| The Netherlands | Participants [1971] (>50 years) recruited from Regional Municipal Health Councils |
C No intervention | Yes | 1-item from SQUASH | Self-rated PA (total weekly days of MPA) |
MT (3 months) Significant effect on self-rated PA in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
| |
EXP1 CT advice (psychosocial) | | | Self-rated compliance with PA guidelines (% of participants that show compliance with guidelines) | ES: 0.20 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (psychosocial + environmental) | | | | ES: 0.20 |
| | | | |
MT (3 months) Significant effect on PA initiation among insufficiently active participants in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.26 |
| | | | | ES: 0.21 |
| | | | |
MT (6 months) Significant effect on self-rated PA in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.30 |
| | | | | ES: 0.35 |
| | | | |
MT (6 months) Significant effect on PA initiation among insufficiently active participants in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.32 |
| | | | | ES: 0.27 |
| | | | |
MT (6 months) Significant effect on PA maintenance among sufficiently active participants in EXP 1 and EXP 2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.33 |
| | | | | ES: 0.34 |
| | | | |
LT (12 months) Significant effect on self-rated PA in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.18 (for both EXP1 and EXP2) |
| USA | Women [225] (50–69) recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE EXP1 CT advice | Yes | Modified 7-day Physical Activity Recall | MVPA (min/day) |
MT Significant effect on lower body muscular strength |
| | | | | | ES: −0.36 |
| | | 1 mile walk test Modified sit-and-reach test | Kilocalories expended per kilogram/day |
LT (12 months) Significant effect on lower body muscular strength |
| | | Repeated timed chair stands | Time engaged in strengthening and stretching exercise (min/week) | ES: −0.41 |
| | | | Aerobic fitness (VO2max in ml/kg/min) |
LT (18 months) Significant effect on lower body muscular strength |
| | | | Lower body muscular strength (timed chair stands in s) | ES: −0.51 |
| Switzerland | Participants [1,531] recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE EXP1 CT advice | ? | 4-item derived from official PA monitoring in Swiss population Accelerometer | MPA/VPA (min/week) |
ST/LT No significant effect on MPA and VPA |
| The Netherlands | Recent retirees [415] (55–65) recruited from pre-retirement workshops |
C Generic HE EXP1 CT advice | Yes | Dutch version of the PA Scale for the Elderly (PASE) [ 96] | Daily routine PA (min/week) |
LT No significant effect (12 and 24 months) on daily routine PA, recreation/sports PA, Σ household activities (0–6) and PASE-score |
| | | | Recreation/sports PA (min/week) | |
| | | | Σ household activities (0–6) PASE-score (0–400) | |
| USA | Participants [1071] recruited from churches |
C No intervention | ? | Pedometer | Daily step counts |
LT (7 and 16 months) Significant effect on PA in EXP2 compared to C |
| |
EXP1 CT advice | | | | ES (7 months): 0.23 |
| |
EXP2 CT advice + church support | | | | ES (16 months): 0.27 |
B. Fat consumption |
| USA | Participants [517] recruited from a large hospital |
C No intervention | Yes | 21-item Diet Habits Questionnaire | Fat eating habits/behavior score |
ST Significant effects on fat eating habits/behavior |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | ES (1-month): −0.49 |
| | | | | ES (2-months): −0.18 |
| USA | Sedentary women [280] recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | National Cancer Institute Screeners | Fat intake (en%) |
MT/LT No significant effects on fat intake |
|
EXP1 Self-help booklet | | | | |
|
EXP2 CT advice | | | | |
| USA | Latinas [357] recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | Nutrition data system: 24 h dietary recall interview | % calories from fat |
ST Significant effects on total and saturated fat intake in EXP2 compared to EXP1 |
| |
EXP1 CT advice | | | Total and saturated fat intake (g) |
LT No sustained significant effects |
|
EXP2 CT advice + Promotoras | | | | |
| USA | Participants [754] (18–72) recruited from physician practices |
C No intervention | ? | Fat and fiber behavior-related questionnaire | Score from 0–3 |
ST Significant effect on dietary fat behavior |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | ES: −0.41 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on dietary fat behavior |
| | | | | ES: −0.29 |
| | | | |
LT Significant effect on dietary fat behavior |
| | | | | ES: −0.23 |
| USA | Participants [1841] with low income, recruited from waiting rooms of public health clinics |
C Generic HE | Yes | Adapted Food Habits Questionnaire | Fat intake (Food Habits Questionnaire score: low score = high prevalence fat-lowering behavior, thus lower fat intake) |
MT Significant effect on fat intake in EXP2 and EXP3 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice (at once) | | | | ES (EXP2-C): −0.31 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (in 4 installments) | | | | ES (EXP3-C): −0.31 |
|
EXP3 EXP2 with retailoring | | | | |
| USA | Women [511] (50–64) recruited from nutrition and PA program (WISEWOMAN) |
C Generic HE | Yes | 54-item Dietary risk assessment | Score from 54-item scale: 0–108 not very atherogenic (0) to very atherogenic diet (108) |
LT No significant effect on saturated fat and cholesterol intake |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | |
| The Netherlands | Participants [442] (18–65) recruited from companies and general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | 104-item FFQ | Total fat intake (g/day, en%) |
ST Significant effects on total fat and saturated fat intake in EXP1 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice (interactive CD-ROM) | | | Saturated fat intake (g/day, %en) | ES (total fat): −0.31 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (print) | | | | ES (saturated fat): −0.22 |
| | | | |
ST Significant effects on total fat intake among risk consumers in EXP1 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: −0.41 |
| | | | |
ST Significant effects on total fat in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: −0.23 |
| | | | |
ST Significant effects on total fat and saturated fat intake among risk consumers in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES (total fat): −0.49 |
| | | | | ES (saturated fat): −0.42 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on total fat and saturated fat intake among risk consumers in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES (total fat): −0.53 |
| | | | | ES (saturated fat): −0.54 |
| The Netherlands | Participants [574] (18–65) recruited from large companies and the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | 104-item FFQ | Total fat intake (g/day) |
ST Significant effect on awareness of fat intake in EXP1 and EXP3 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice (personal) | | 1-item | Saturated fat intake (g/day) | ES (EXP1): 0.30 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (personal–normative) | | | Self-rated fat intake (awareness) (−2 to +2) | ES (EXP3): 0.41 |
|
EXP3 CT advice (personal–normative–action) | | | |
ST Significant effect on fat intake and saturated fat intake in EXP3 compared to C |
| | | | | ES (fat intake): −0.52 |
| | | | | ES (saturated fat intake): −0.46 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on fat intake in EXP1, EXP2 and EXP3 compared to C |
| | | | | ES (EXP1): 0.34 |
| | | | | ES (EXP2): 0.55 |
| | | | | ES (EXP3): 0.53 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on saturated fat intake in EXP3 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: −0.51 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on fat and saturated fat intake among underestimators in EXP3 compared to C |
| | | | | ES (fat intake): −0.64 |
| | | | | ES (saturated fat intake): -0.63 |
| New Zealand | Participants [1,104] recruited from a selection of customers registered to use the Shop ‘N Go System and in-store and community-based recruitment |
C No intervention | ? | Electronic scanner (Shop ‘N Go system) | % of energy from saturated fats in purchases |
MT No significant effect on saturated fat purchases |
|
EXP1 CT advice EXP2 CT advice + discount | | | | |
|
EXP3 Discount | | | | |
| The Netherlands | Participants [2,159] (>30) recruited from online research panel |
C No intervention | Yes | 35-item FFQ | Saturated fat intake (fat points/day from 0 to 80) |
ST Significant effect on saturated fat intake |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | 1-item | Self-rated intake (scale from −2 to +2) | ES: −0.16 |
| | | | |
ST Significant effect on saturated fat intake in at-risk group (those who did not comply with the recommended level of saturated fat intake at baseline) |
| | | | | ES: −0.23 |
| USA | Sedentary primary care patients [5,407] at risk for at least one of the target behaviors recruited from primary care practices (Prochaska, 2005-458). |
C No intervention | | | | |
| Parents of teenagers [2,460] at risk for at least one of the target behaviors recruited from schools (Prochaska, 2005-486) |
EXP1 CT advice | Yes | 22-item Dietary Behavior Questionnaire | Score on subscales: avoidance substitution modification |
Among sedentary primary care patients
|
| | | | |
LT (12 months) Significant effects on avoidance, modification and substitution |
| | | | | | ES (avoidance):0.24 |
| | | | | | ES (modification):0.18 |
| | | | | | ES (substitution):0.22 |
| | | | | |
LT (24 months) Significant effects on avoidance |
| | | | | | ES (avoidance):0.27 |
| | | | | | ES (substitution):0.20 |
| | | | | |
Among parents of teenagers
|
| | | | | |
LT (12 months) Significant effects on avoidance and substitution |
| | | | | | ES (avoidance): 0.16 |
| | | | | | ES (substitution): 0.19 |
| | | | | |
LT (24 months) Significant effects on avoidance and substitution |
| | | | | | ES (avoidance): 0.18 |
| | | | | | ES (substitution): 0.23 |
| The Netherlands | Participants [2,827] (18–65) recruited from companies and the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | FFQ | Fat intake (g) |
MT Significant effect on fat intake in EXP1 compared to C |
| |
EXP1 CT advice (once delivered in 3 months (Smeets, 2007) | | | Saturated fat intake (g) | ES: −0.12 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (3 times delivered in 9 months (De Vries, 2008) | | | % compliant to guidelines for saturated fat intake |
LT Significant effect on % compliant to guideline on saturated fat intake in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: −0.18 |
| USA | Participants [787] recruited from administration offices of a large healthcare organization |
C No intervention | Yes | Diet questionnaire based on Block Food Questionnaire | Saturated fats (g/day) |
ST Significant effect on saturated and trans fat intake |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | Trans fats (g/day) |
ST Significant effect on saturated and trans fat intake among those who chose the fats/sugar path of the intervention |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on saturated and trans fat intake |
| | | | | ES: N/A |
De Bourdeaudhuij, 2007 [ 74] | Belgium | Participants [539] recruited from companies |
C No intervention | Yes | 48-item FFQ | Total fat intake (g/day) |
MT Significant effect on energy from fat and total fat intake in EXP1 compared to C1 and C2 |
|
EXP1 CT advice on PA and fat intake sequentially delivery | | | | Energy from fat (%) |
|
EXP2 CT advice on PA and fat intake simultaneously delivered | | | | Fat intake (seperate food groups) (g/day) |
|
EXP3 CT advice only on fat intake | | | |
EXP1 compared to C1
|
| | | | | ES (energy from fat): −0.37 |
| | | | | ES (total fat intake): −0.32 |
| | | | |
EXP1 compared to C2
|
| | | | | ES (energy from fat): −0.13 |
| | | | | ES (total fat intake): 0.09 |
| | | | |
MT Significant difference in energy from fat between C1 and C2 |
| | | | | ES: −0.24 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on energy from fat and total fat intake among participants who meet/do not meet fat intake recommendations in EXP1 compared to C1 and C2 |
| | | | | ES: N/A |
| USA | Women [225] (50–69) recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | Web-based Block98 FFQ | % calories from fat |
LT (6 months) Significant effect on % calories from saturated fat |
| |
EXP1 CT advice | | | % calories from saturated fat | ES: −0.30 |
| | | | |
LT (12 months) Significant effect on % calories from saturated fat |
| | | | | ES: −0.49 |
| | | | |
LT (18 months) Significant effect on % calories from saturated fat |
| | | | | ES: −0.56 |
| The Netherlands | Recent retirees [415] (55–65) recruited from pre-retirement workshops |
C Generic HE | | | | |
|
EXP1 CT advice | Yes | Semi quantitative | Fat intake (en%) |
LT No significant effects on fat intake |
| | | FFQ | | |
| USA | Participants [1,071] recruited from churches |
C No intervention | Yes | Block98 FFQ | % kcal from fat |
LT No significant effects on fat intake |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Food shopping receipts | | |
|
EXP2 CT advice + church support | | | | |
C. Fruit and vegetable consumption |
| USA | Participants [2,540] (21–65) recruited from health plans |
C Generic HE | Yes | 16-item FFQ by National Cancer Institute | Fruit and vegetables intake (servings in past month) |
LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in the past month in EXP2 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | 2-item | Fruit and vegetables intake (servings on a typical day) | ES: 0.10 |
|
EXP2 CT advice + personal counseling | | | |
LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake on a typical day in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES (EXP1): 0.08 |
| | | | | ES (EXP2): 0.13 |
| USA | Participants [517] recruited from a large hospital |
C No intervention | Yes | 5-A-Day Screener | Fruit and vegetables consumption score |
ST Significant effects on fruit and vegetables consumption |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | ES (1 month): 0.21 |
| | | | | ES (2 months): 0.04 |
| USA | Sedentary women [280] recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | National Cancer Institute Screeners | Fruit and vegetables intake (daily servings) |
MT/LT No significant effects on fruit and vegetables intake |
|
EXP1 Self-help booklet | | | | |
|
EXP2 CT advice | | | | |
| USA | Participants [1,841] with low income, recruited from waiting rooms of public health clinics |
C Generic HE | ? | 7-item National Cancer Institute fruit and vegetables screener assessment tool | Fruit and vegetables intake (servings/day) |
MT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C and EXP3 |
|
EXP1 CT advice (at once) | | | | ES (EXP1-C): 0.18 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (in 4 installments) | | | | ES (EXP1-EXP3): 0.20 |
|
EXP3 EXP2 with retailoring | | | | ES (EXP2-C): 0.12 |
| | | | | ES (EXP2-EXP3): 0.14 |
| | | | |
LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.17 |
| USA | Participants [3.402] (18+) recruited through Cancer Information Service offices (callers) |
C Generic HE (1 booklet) | Yes | 1-item | Fruit and vegetables intake (daily servings) |
LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 and EXP3 compared to C |
EXP1 CT advice (1 booklet) | | | 7-item FFQ | | ES: N/A |
EXP2 CT advice (4 booklets) | | | | | |
EXP3 CT advice (4 booklets + retailoring) | | | | | |
| USA | Lower-income African–American women [1,227] (18–65) from 10 urban public health centers |
C No intervention | Yes | 13-item FFQ | Fruit and vegetables intake (servings/day) |
MT No significant effects on fruit and vegetables intake |
|
EXP1 CT advice tailored on behavioral constructs | | | |
LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP3 compared to other groups |
|
EXP2 CT advice tailored on cultural factors | | | |
LT Significant effect among lower motivated women on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP3 compared to other groups |
|
EXP3 EXP1 + EXP2 | | | | ES: N/A |
| USA | Participants [2,024] (18–24) recruited from non-college venues |
C No intervention | Yes | 5 A Day Screener | Fruit and vegetables intake (servings) |
MT Significant effects on fruit and fruit and vegetables intake and perceived vegetables intake ES (fruit intake): 0.12 |
| |
EXP1 CT advice | | 2-item | Perceived daily intake | ES (fruit and vegetables intake): 0.14 |
| | | 26-item FFQ | Variety in fruit and vegetables intake (number of different items consumed at least once a month, regardless of amount) | ES (perceived vegetables intake): 0.08 |
| | | | |
LT Significant effects on fruit and fruit and vegetables intake and perceived intake of vegetables and fruit and vegetables |
| | | | | ES (fruit intake): 0.15 |
| | | | | ES (fruit and vegetables intake): 0.13 |
| | | | | ES (perceived vegetables intake): 0.11 |
| | | | | ES (perceived intake fruit and vegetables): 0.12 |
| | | | |
LT Significant effects on variety in fruit and vegetables consumption, consumption of seasonal fruits, juices and high beta-carotene vegetables |
| | | | | ES (variety fruit) >1.00 |
| | | | | ES (variety vegetables) >1.00 |
| | | | | ES (seasonal fruits consumption) >1.00 |
| | | | | ES (juices consumption) >1.00 |
| | | | | ES (high beta-carotene vegetables consumption) > 1.00 |
| USA | Sedentary primary care patients [5,407] at risk for at least one of the target behaviors recruited from primary care practices |
C No intervention | Yes | 22-item Dietary Behavior Questionnaire | Score on subscale fruit and vegetables |
LT No significant effect on fruit and vegetables in both study samples |
| Parents of teenagers [2,460] at risk for at least one of the target behaviors recruited from schools |
EXP1 CT advice | | | | |
| The Netherlands | Participants [2,827] (18–65) recruited from companies and the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | FFQ | Fruit intake (pieces/day) |
MT Significant effect on fruit intake among participants who did not meet recommendations for any behavior in EXP1 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice (once delivered in 3 months (Smeets et al.)) | | | | Vegetables intake (g/day) | ES: 0.30 |
EXP2 CT advice (3 times delivered in 9 months (De Vries et al.)) | | | | % compliant to guidelines for fruit intake (at least 2 pieces of fruit for 7 days/week) |
MT Significant effect on vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C |
| | | | Vegetables intake | ES: 0.10 |
| | | | % compliant to guidelines for vegetables intake (at least 200 g of vegetables/day for 7 days/week) |
LT Significant effect on fruit intake and % compliant to fruit guidelines in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.35 |
| | | | | ES: 0.24 |
| | | | |
LT Significant effect on vegetable intake and % compliant to vegetables guidelines in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.32 |
| | | | | ES: 0.08 |
| USA | Participants [787] recruited from administration offices of a large healthcare organization |
C No intervention | Yes | Diet questionnaire based on Block Food Questionnaire | Fruit and vegetables intake (cup-equivalents/day) |
ST Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | |
ST Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake among those who chose the fruit and vegetables path of the intervention |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake |
| | | | | ES: N/A |
| The Netherlands | Participants [1,629] (45–70) recruited from general practices |
C1 No intervention | Yes | 16-item short questionnaire | Fruit intake (servings/day) |
MT Significant effect on fruit intake of EXP1 compared to C1 and C3 |
|
C2 Coaching | | | Vegetables (g/day) | ES (EXP1-C1): 0.19 |
|
C3 C2 + EXP1 | | | | ES (EXP1-C3): 0.18 |
|
EXP1 TC advice | | | |
MT Significant effect on vegetables intake of EXP1 compared to C1 and C3 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C1): 0.10 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C3): 0.12 |
| | | | |
LT (~11 months) Significant effect on fruit intake of EXP1 compared to C1 |
| | | | | ES: 0.32 |
| | | | |
LT (~11 months) Significant effect on vegetables intake of EXP1 compared to C1, C2 and C3 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C1): 0.33 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C2): 0.24 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C3): 0.19 |
| | | | |
LT (~18 months) Significant effect on fruit intake of EXP1 compared to C1, C2 and C3 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C1): 0.35 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C2): 0.22 |
| | | | | ES (EXP1-C3): 0.24 |
| | | | |
LT (~18 months) Significant effect on vegetables intake of EXP1 compared to C1 |
| | | | | ES: 0.27 |
| USA | Women [225] (50–69) recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | Web-based Block98 FFQ | Fruit and vegetables intake (daily servings) |
LT (6 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake |
| |
EXP1 CT advice | | | | ES: 0.22 |
| | | | |
LT (12 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake |
| | | | | ES: 0.41 |
| | | | |
LT (18 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake |
| | | | | ES: 0.40 |
| The Netherlands | Recent retirees [415] (55–65) recruited from pre-retirement workshops |
C Generic HE | Yes | Semi quantitative | Fruit and vegetables intake (g/MJ) |
LT No significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | FFQ | | |
| USA | Participants [1,071] recruited from churches |
C No intervention | Yes | Block98 FFQ | Fruit and vegetables intake (g/1000 kcal) |
LT (7 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Food shopping receipts | | ES: 0.44 |
|
EXP2 CT advice + church support | | | | Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.57 |
| | | | |
LT (16 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.12 |
| | | | | Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: 0.32 |
D. Other dietary topics |
| Japan | Overweight Japanese women [205] recruited from the general population (Adachi, 2007) |
C1 Self-help booklet | ? | Weight parameters | BMI (kg/m2) |
ST Significant effect on BMI in EXP1 & EXP2 compared to C1 & C2 among overweigh Japanese women |
| Overweight Japanese men [51] recruited from the general population (Tanaka, 2010) |
C2 C + self- monitoring of weight and walking | | | |
BMI
|
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | ES EXP1-C1: −0.60 |
|
EXP2
f CT advice + self- monitoring of weight and walking | | | | ES EXP1-C2: −0.48 |
| | | | | ES EXP2-C1: −0.77 |
| | | | | ES EXP2-C2: −0.66 |
| | | | |
ST Significant effect on BMI in EXP2 compared to C1among overweigh Japanese men
|
| | | | |
BMI
|
| | | | | ES EXP2-C1: −0.69 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on BMI in EXP2 compared to C1 & C2 among overweight Japanese women |
| | | | |
BMI
|
| | | | | ES EXP2-C1: −0.70 |
| | | | | ES EXP2-C2: −0.58 |
| | | | |
LT Significant effect on BMI in EXP2 compared to C1 and C2 among overweight Japanese women |
| | | | |
BMI
|
| | | | | ES EXP2-C1: −0.59 |
| | | | | ES EXP2-C2: −0.55 |
| | | | |
LT No significant effect on BMI in EXP2 compared to C1among overweigh Japanese men |
| USA | Latinas [357] recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | Nutrition data system (NDS): 24 h dietary recall interview | Total energy intake (kcal) |
ST/LT No significant effects |
| |
EXP1 CT advice | | | Total carbohydrates intake (g) | |
|
EXP2 CT advice + promotoras | | | | |
| USA | Participants [754] (18–72) recruited from physician practices |
C No intervention | ? | Fat and fiber behavior-related questionnaire | Score from 0–3 |
ST Significant effect on fiber behavior |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | ES: −0.35 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effect on fiber behavior |
| | | | | ES: −0.24 |
| Finland | Overweight participants [125] (25-44) from the general population |
C Generic HE | Weight parameters | Body weight (kg) | |
LT Significant effect on weight loss and waist circumference |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | % Weight loss | | ES (weight loss): −0.14 |
| | | Waist circumference | | ES (waist circumference): −0.18 |
| The Netherlands | Participants [442] (18–65) recruited from companies and general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | 104-item FFQ | Energy intake (MJ/day) |
ST Significant effects on energy intake in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
|
EXP1 CT advice (CD-ROM) | | | | ES: −0.28 |
|
EXP2 CT advice (print) | | | | ES: −0.38 |
| | | | |
ST Significant effects on energy intake among risk consumers in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: −0.50 |
| | | | | ES: −0.66 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effects on energy intake among risk consumers in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: −0.68 |
| | | | | ES: −0.44 |
| | | | |
MT Significant effects on energy intake in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | | ES: −0.26 |
| USA | College students [294] recruited from a land grant, research-intensive university |
C No intervention | ? | 7 day food records | Average daily dairy servings |
MT No significant effect |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | |
| USA | Participants [1400] at risk for at least one risk behavior (exercise, stress, BMI >25 kg/m2 and smoking) recruited from a major medical university |
C Health Risk Assesment | Yes | Self-report | % above/below BMI = 25 kg/m2
|
MT No significant effect on BMI |
|
EXP1 C + coaching | | | | |
|
EXP2 C + TTM-based feedback | | | | |
| USA | Overweight and obese (BMI = 27–40 kg/m2) participants [2862] recruited from health care delivery system |
C Generic HE | ? | Self-report | % of baseline weight lost |
MT/LT Significant effect on % of baseline weight lost |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | ES > 1.00 |
| USA | Participants [787] recruited from administration offices of a large healthcare organization |
C No intervention | Yes | Diet questionnaire based on Block Food Questionnaire | Added sugars (g/day) |
ST/MT No significant effects on added sugars |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | | | |
| USA | Women [225] (50–69) recruited from the general population |
C Generic HE | Yes | Web-based Block98 FFQ | Whole-grain intake (daily servings) |
LT No significant effects |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Bioelectrical impedance analysis | % Body fat | |
| | | Weight parameters | BMI (kg/m2) | |
| The Netherlands | Recent retirees [415] (55–65) recruited from pre-retirement workshops |
C Generic HE | Yes | Weight parameters | Waist circumference (cm), BMI (kg/m2) |
LT Significant effect on waist circumference among men with low education |
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Semi quantitative | Energy intake (MJ/day) | |
| | | FFQ | | |
| USA | Participants [1,071] recruited from churches |
C No intervention | Yes | Block98 FFQ | Fiber intake (g/1,000 kcal) |
LT (7 months)
|
|
EXP1 CT advice | | Weight parameters | Weight (lb) | Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C |
|
EXP2 CT advice + church support | | Food shopping receipts | |
ES: 0.35 |
| | | | | Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | |
ES: 0.44 |
| | | | | Significant effect on weight |
| | | | | In EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | |
ES: 0.21
|
| | | | |
LT (16 months)
|
| | | | | Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C |
| | | | |
ES: 0.20 |
| | | | | Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C |
| | | | |
ES: 0.28 |