Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26643917›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

A theory-based online health behaviour intervention for new university students (U@Uni:LifeGuide): results from a repeat randomized controlled trial.

David Cameron, Tracy Epton, Paul Norman, Paschal Sheeran, Peter R Harris, Thomas L Webb, Steven A Julious, Alan Brennan, Chloe Thomas, Andrea Petroczi and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors.

David CameronDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TP, UK. d.s.cameron@sheffield.ac.uk.
Tracy EptonSchool of Psychological Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. epton.tracy@gmail.com.
Paul NormanDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TP, UK. p.norman@sheffield.ac.uk.
Paschal SheeranPsychology Department, University of North Carolina, 323 Davie Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-3270, USA. psheeran@email.unc.edu.
Peter R HarrisSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK. p.r.harris@sussex.ac.uk.
Thomas L WebbDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TP, UK. t.webb@sheffield.ac.uk.
Steven A JuliousSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. s.a.julious@sheffield.ac.uk.
Alan BrennanSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. A.Brennan@sheffield.ac.uk.
Chloe ThomasSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. c.thomas@sheffield.ac.uk.
Andrea PetrocziSchool of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2EE, UK. a.petroczi@kingston.ac.uk.
Declan NaughtonSchool of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2EE, UK. d.naughton@kingston.ac.uk.
Iltaf ShahSchool of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2EE, UK. i.shah@kingston.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeDepartment of HealthMedical Research Council MR/J000450/1Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper reports the results of a repeat trial assessing the effectiveness of an online theory-based intervention to promote healthy lifestyle behaviours in new university students. The original trial found that the intervention reduced the number of smokers at 6-month follow-up compared with the control condition, but had non-significant effects on the other targeted health behaviours. However, the original trial suffered from low levels of engagement, which the repeat trial sought to rectify.

methodsThree weeks before staring university, all incoming undergraduate students at a large university in the UK were sent an email inviting them to participate in the study. After completing a baseline questionnaire, participants were randomly allocated to intervention or control conditions. The intervention consisted of a self-affirmation manipulation, health messages based on the theory of planned behaviour and implementation intention tasks. Participants were followed-up 1 and 6 months after starting university. The primary outcome measures were portions of fruit and vegetables consumed, physical activity levels, units of alcohol consumed and smoking status at 6-month follow-up.

resultsThe study recruited 2,621 students (intervention n=1346, control n=1275), of whom 1495 completed at least one follow-up (intervention n=696, control n=799). Intention-to-treat analyses indicated that the intervention had a non-significant effect on the primary outcomes, although the effect of the intervention on fruit and vegetable intake was significant in the per-protocol analyses. Secondary analyses revealed that the intervention had significant effects on having smoked at university (self-report) and on a biochemical marker of alcohol use.

conclusionsDespite successfully increasing levels of engagement, the intervention did not have a significant effect on the primary outcome measures. The relatively weak effects of the intervention, found in both the original and repeat trials, may be due to the focus on multiple versus single health behaviours. Future interventions targeting the health behaviour of new university students should therefore focus on single health behaviours.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN07407344 .

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInternetLife StyleRisk Reduction BehaviorUniversitiesAdolescentAlcohol DrinkingDietEnglandExerciseFeeding BehaviorFemaleFruitHealth PromotionHumans

Identifiers

PMID26643917
PMCPMC4672536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.