Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27542384›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2016

Exploring the dynamics of a free fruit at work intervention.

Amelia A Lake, Sarah A Smith, Charlotte E Bryant, Sevil Alinia, Kirsten Brandt, Chris J Seal, Inge Tetens

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Amelia A LakeCentre for Public Policy & Health, School of Medicine & Health, Wolfson Research Institute, Durham University, Queen's Campus, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK. amelia.lake@durham.ac.uk.
Sarah A SmithCentre for Public Policy & Health, School of Medicine & Health, Wolfson Research Institute, Durham University, Queen's Campus, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK.
Charlotte E BryantDepartment of Nutrition, Technical University of Denmark, Mørkhøj Bygade 19, Søborg, DK-2860, Denmark.
Sevil AliniaDepartment of Nutrition, Technical University of Denmark, Mørkhøj Bygade 19, Søborg, DK-2860, Denmark.
Kirsten BrandtHuman Nutrition Research Centre, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.
Chris J SealHuman Nutrition Research Centre, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.
Inge TetensDepartment of Nutrition, Technical University of Denmark, Mørkhøj Bygade 19, Søborg, DK-2860, Denmark.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe workplace has been identified as an ideal setting for health interventions. However, few UK-based workplace intervention studies have been published. Fewer still focus on the practicalities and implications when running an intervention within the workplace setting. The objective of this paper was to qualitatively determine the perceived behaviour changes of participants in a free fruit at work intervention. Understanding the dynamics of a workplace intervention and establishing any limitations of conducting an intervention in a workplace setting were also explored.

methodsTwenty-three face-to-face interviews were conducted with individuals receiving free fruit at work for 18 weeks (74 % female). The worksite was the offices of a regional local government in the North East of England. Analysis was guided theoretically by Grounded Theory research and the data were subjected to content analysis. The transcripts were read repeatedly and cross-compared to develop a coding framework and derive dominant themes.

resultsTopics explored included: the workplace food environment; the effect of the intervention on participants and on other related health behaviours; the effect of the intervention on others; participant's fruit consumption; reasons for not taking part in the intervention; expectations and sustainability post-intervention; and how to make the workplace healthier. Five emergent themes included: the office relationship with food; desk based eating; males and peer support; guilt around consumption of unhealthy foods; and the type of workplace influencing the acceptability of future interventions.

conclusionExploring the perceptions of participants offered valued insights into the dynamics of a free fruit workplace intervention. Findings suggest that access and availability are both barriers and facilitators to encouraging healthy eating in the workplace.

Indexed as

AttitudeDietEmotionsFeeding BehaviorFruitWorkplaceAdultEnglandEnvironmentFemaleGrounded TheoryHealth BehaviorHealth PromotionHumansMaleQualitative ResearchFruitIntervention developmentPerceived healthy behaviourWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID27542384
PMCPMC4992262

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.