Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25706120›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Development and implementation of the National Cancer Institute's Food Attitudes and Behaviors Survey to assess correlates of fruit and vegetable intake in adults.

Temitope O Erinosho, Courtney A Pinard, Linda C Nebeling, Richard P Moser, Abdul R Shaikh, Ken Resnicow, April Y Oh, Amy L Yaroch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Temitope O ErinoshoUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Courtney A PinardGretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, Nebraska, United States of America.
Linda C NebelingU.S. National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Richard P MoserU.S. National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Abdul R ShaikhU.S. National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Ken ResnicowUniversity of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
April Y OhClinical Monitoring Research Program, SAIC-Frederick, Inc., National Cancer Institute-Frederick, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Amy L YarochGretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, Nebraska, United States of America.
National Cancer Institute · USSwanson Center · USMichigan United · USNational Institutes of Health · USScience Applications International Corporation (United States) · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow fruit and vegetable (FV) intake is a leading risk factor for chronic disease globally as well as in the United States. Much of the population does not consume the recommended servings of FV daily. This paper describes the development of psychosocial measures of FV intake for inclusion in the U.S. National Cancer Institute's 2007 Food Attitudes and Behaviors Survey.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional study among 3,397 adults from the United States. Scales included conventional constructs shown to be correlated with fruit and vegetable intake (FVI) in prior studies (e.g., self-efficacy, social support), and novel constructs that have been measured in few- to- no studies (e.g., views on vegetarianism, neophobia). FVI was assessed with an eight-item screener. Exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, and regression analyses were conducted.

resultsPsychosocial scales with Cronbach's alpha ≥0.68 were self-efficacy, social support, perceived barriers and benefits of eating FVs, views on vegetarianism, autonomous and controlled motivation, and preference for FVs. Conventional scales that were associated (p<0.05) with FVI were self-efficacy, social support, and perceived barriers to eating FVs. Novel scales that were associated (p<0.05) with FVI were autonomous motivation, and preference for vegetables. Other single items that were associated (p<0.05) with FVI included knowledge of FV recommendations, FVI "while growing up", and daily water consumption.

conclusionThese findings may inform future behavioral interventions as well as further exploration of other potential factors to promote and support FVI.

Indexed as

FruitHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeNutrition SurveysVegetablesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDietEatingFeeding BehaviorFemaleFoodHealth BehaviorHumans

Identifiers

PMID25706120
PMCPMC4338082
OpenAlexW2045708409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.