Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26686818›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics2016

Beverage Choices of Adolescents and Their Parents Using the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Mixed Methods Analysis.

Shaun K Riebl, Carly MacDougal, Catelyn Hill, Paul A Estabrooks, Julie C Dunsmore, Jyoti Savla, Madlyn I Frisard, Andrea M Dietrich, Brenda M Davy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shaun K Riebl
Carly MacDougal
Catelyn Hill
Paul A Estabrooks
Julie C Dunsmore
Jyoti Savla
Madlyn I Frisard
Andrea M Dietrich
Brenda M Davy
Virginia Tech · USCarilion Clinic · USWilliams (United States) · US

Funding

d13C Added Sugar Intake Biomarker: Determining Validity in ChildrenR21HD078636 · NICHD · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI DAVY, BRENDA M · 2014 to 2015
$443k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD078636NICHD NIH HHS R21HD078636-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdded sugar intake in the form of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) has been considered a contributor to weight gain and cardiometabolic dysfunction in adults and youth. Adolescents are some of the highest consumers of added sugars, taking in ∼16% of their total calories from added sugars with ∼40% of these calories coming from SSBs. Food preferences and self-regulation of dietary intake by youth can be influenced by parents.

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in understanding and predicting adolescents' SSB consumption, identify which constructs are the most important when evaluating SSB consumption in adolescents, and determine whether and how adolescents' beverage choices are influenced by parents' reactions to their beverage choices.

designMeasurements for this cross-sectional study included four record-assisted 24-hour dietary recalls and responses to an SSB-specific TPB questionnaire from 100 adolescents. Consenting parents completed a beverage intake questionnaire, a TPB questionnaire, and the Parent Response to Beverage Choice Questionnaire.

resultsThe TPB explained 34% of the variance in adolescents' and parents' intention to limit SSBs to <1cup/day. Parents' perceived behavioral control (b=1.35; P=0.002) and adolescents' subjective norms (b=0.57; P=0.001) were the strongest predictors of intention, and intention was the strongest predictor of SSB consumption in both adolescents and parents (b=-37 [P=0.026] and b=-49 [P=0.003], respectively). The TPB explained more variance in parent SSB consumption (R(2)=0.38) than adolescents (R(2)=0.22). Parents did more discouraging of SSBs and encouraging of non-SSBs. Adolescents' intention to limit SSB consumption moderated the relationship between parents' reactions encouraging SSBs and adolescents' predicted SSB consumption (P=0.021).

conclusionsThe TPB explained a small but significant amount of variance in adolescents' SSB consumption. When addressing adolescent SSB intake, people in addition to parents may influence their intentions and SSB consumption.

Indexed as

Adolescent BehaviorBeveragesChoice BehaviorFood PreferencesParentingAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesDietary SucroseDiet RecordsFemaleHumansIntentionMaleOverweightParent-Child RelationsParentsDietary SucroseAdolescentsParentsSugar-sweetened beveragesSugary drinksTheory of Planned Behavior

Identifiers

PMID26686818
PMCPMC4746018
OpenAlexW2252264196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.