Dataset Information

Accounting for health literacy and intervention preferences when reducing unhealthy snacking: protocol for an online randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Health literacy describes the cognitive and social skills that individuals use to access, understand and act on health information. Health literacy interventions typically take the 'universal precautions approach' where all consumers are presented with simplified materials. Although this approach can improve knowledge and comprehension, its impact on complex behaviours is less clear. Systematic reviews also suggest that health literacy interventions underuse volitional strategies (such as planning) that play an important role in behaviour change. A recent study found volitional strategies may need to be tailored to the participant's health literacy. The current study aims to replicate these findings in a sample of people who have diabetes and/or are overweight or obese as measured by body mass index, and to investigate the most effective method of allocating an action plan to a participant to reduce unhealthy snacking.

Methods and analysis

We plan to recruit approximately 2400 participants at baseline. Participants will receive one of two alternative online action plans intended to reduce unhealthy snacking ('standard' action plan or 'literacy-sensitive' action plan). Participants will be randomised to a method of allocation to an action plan: (1) random allocation; (2) allocation by health literacy screening tool or (3) allocation by participant selection. Primary outcome is self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks during the previous month. Multiple linear regression will evaluate the impact of health literacy on intervention effectiveness. The analysis will also identify independent contributions of each action plan, method of allocation, health literacy and participant selections on unhealthy snacking at 4-week follow-up.

Ethics and dissemination

This study was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2017/793). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, conferences and updates with collaborating public health bodies (Diabetes New South Wales (NSW) & Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and Western Sydney Local Health District).

Trial registration number

ACTRN12618001409268; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Ayre J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6549624 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accounting for health literacy and intervention preferences when reducing unhealthy snacking: protocol for an online randomised controlled trial.

Ayre Julie J Cvejic Erin E Bonner Carissa C Turner Robin M RM Walter Stephen D SD McCaffery Kirsten J KJ

BMJ open 20190528 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Health literacy describes the cognitive and social skills that individuals use to access, understand and act on health information. Health literacy interventions typically take the 'universal precautions approach' where all consumers are presented with simplified materials. Although this approach can improve knowledge and comprehension, its impact on complex behaviours is less clear. Systematic reviews also suggest that health literacy interventions underuse volitional strat ...[more]

PMID: 31142536

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLow health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes. A key strategy to address health literacy is a universal precautions approach, which recommends using health-literate design for all health interventions, not just those targeting people with low health literacy. This approach has advantages: Health literacy assessment and tailoring are not required. However, action plans may be more effective when tailored by health literacy. This study evaluated the impact of health literacy and action plan type on unhealthy snacking for people who have high BMI or type 2 diabetes (Aim 1) and the most effective method of action plan allocation (Aim 2).Methods and findingsWe performed a 2-stage randomised controlled trial in Australia between 14 February and 6 June 2019. In total, 1,769 participants (mean age: 49.8 years [SD = 11.7]; 56.1% female [n = 992]; mean BMI: 32.9 kg/m2 [SD = 8.7]; 29.6% self-reported type 2 diabetes [n = 523]) were randomised to 1 of 3 allocation methods (random, health literacy screening, or participant selection) and 1 of 2 action plans to reduce unhealthy snacking (standard versus literacy-sensitive). Regression analysis evaluated the impact of health literacy (Newest Vital Sign [NVS]), allocation method, and action plan on reduction in self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks (primary outcome) at 4-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were perceived extent of unhealthy snacking, difficulty using the plans, habit strength, and action control. Analyses controlled for age, level of education, language spoken at home, diabetes status, baseline habit strength, and baseline self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks. Average NVS score was 3.6 out of 6 (SD = 2.0). Participants reported consuming 25.0 serves of snacks on average per week at baseline (SD = 28.0). Regarding Aim 1, 398 participants in the random allocation arm completed follow-up (67.7%). On average, people scoring 1 SD below the mean for health literacy consumed 10.0 fewer serves per week using the literacy-sensitive action plan compared to the standard action plan (95% CI: 0.05 to 19.5; p = 0.039), whereas those scoring 1 SD above the mean consumed 3.0 fewer serves using the standard action plan compared to the literacy-sensitive action plan (95% CI: -6.3 to 12.2; p = 0.529), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. In addition, we observed a non-significant action plan × health literacy (NVS) interaction (b = -3.25; 95% CI: -6.55 to 0.05; p = 0.054). Regarding Aim 2, 1,177 participants across the 3 allocation method arms completed follow-up (66.5%). There was no effect of allocation method on reduction of unhealthy snacking, including no effect of health literacy screening compared to participant selection (b = 1.79; 95% CI: -0.16 to 3.73; p = 0.067). Key limitations include low-moderate retention, use of a single-occasion self-reported primary outcome, and reporting of a number of extreme, yet plausible, snacking scores, which rendered interpretation more challenging. Adverse events were not assessed.ConclusionsIn our study we observed nominal improvements in effectiveness of action plans tailored to health literacy; however, these improvements did not reach statistical significance, and the costs associated with such strategies compared with universal precautions need further investigation. This study highlights the importance of considering differential effects of health literacy on intervention effectiveness.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12618001409268.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many young people form unhealthy behavioural habits, such as low intake of fruit and vegetables, high intake of energy-dense snack foods, and excessive sedentary screen-based behaviours. However, there is a shortage of parent-and home-focused interventions to change multiple health behaviours in children. METHODS:Kids FIRST was a 12-week, home- and school-based pilot randomised controlled trial to reduce screen-time and unhealthy snacking with assessments at pre- (baseline) and post-intervention. Four UK schools were randomised to control or one of three interventions targeting reductions in (1) screen-time and unhealthy snacking (ST + Sn), (2) screen-time (ST only), (3) unhealthy snacking (Sn only), and parents with children aged 9-11 years were recruited via schools. Intervention group parents received four online 'sessions' and four packages of resources tailored to each group. Children received four 30-min lessons during school time. Children and parents reported their own screen-time behaviours, children reported their own snacking behaviours. Descriptive analyses were undertaken using principles of intention to treat. RESULTS:Initial feasibility was shown in that this study successfully recruited schools and families into all four study arms and retained them over a period of 13 weeks (retention rate ≥ 74%). Seventy-five children and 64 parents provided full baseline questionnaire data. Reductions in children's school day and weekend day TV/DVD viewing and computer game use were found in the ST + Sn and ST groups, while self-reported smartphone use increased in these groups. Similar results were found for parents' TV/DVD, computer and smartphone use in these groups. Little to no changes were found in reports of the dietary variables assessed in any intervention group for children or parents. CONCLUSIONS:These preliminary findings show some promise for the Kids FIRST intervention. Based on these findings, a future full trial should recruit a more diverse sample of families and optimise the intervention and intervention resources to more fully engage parents with the dietary-based components of the intervention programme, where fewer changes were seen. Although most parents reporting receiving the intervention resources, further development work is required to achieve higher levels of engagement. This might include greater parent and child engagement work early in the development of the project. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Retrospectively registered in June 21st 2019 with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT03993652).

Project description:IntroductionSchool canteens represent an opportune setting in which to deliver public health nutrition strategies given their wide reach, and frequent use by children. Online school canteen ordering systems, where students order and pay for their lunch online, provide an avenue to improve healthy canteen purchases through the application of consumer behaviour strategies that impact on purchasing decisions. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a consumer behaviour intervention implemented in an online school canteen ordering system in reducing the kilojoule, saturated fat, sugar and sodium content of primary student lunch orders.Methods and analysisThe study will employ a cluster randomised controlled trial design. Approximately 1040 students (aged 5-12 years) from 10 primary schools in New South Wales, Australia, currently using an online canteen ordering system will be invited to participate. Schools will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the intervention (enhanced system) or control (standard online ordering only). The intervention will include evidence-based strategies shown to influence healthy food purchasing (strategies targeting availability, menu labelling, placement and prompting). The primary outcomes of the trial will be the mean content per student online lunch order of (1) energy (kJ), (2) saturated fat (g), (3) sugar (g) and (4) sodium (mg). The impact of the intervention will be determined by between-group assessment of the nutritional content of lunch purchases over a 2-month period postintervention initiation.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee and New South Wales Department of Education and School Communities. Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and relevant presentations in international conferences and to stakeholders.Trial registration numberACTRN12616000499482.

Dataset Information

Accounting for health literacy and intervention preferences when reducing unhealthy snacking: protocol for an online randomised controlled trial.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Accounting for health literacy and intervention preferences when reducing unhealthy snacking: protocol for an online randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets