Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28165771›Full record

Trial reportPsychology & health2017

Predicting sugar-sweetened behaviours with theory of planned behaviour constructs: Outcome and process results from the SIPsmartER behavioural intervention.

Jamie M Zoellner, Kathleen J Porter, Yvonnes Chen, Valisa E Hedrick, Wen You, Maja Hickman, Paul A Estabrooks

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Psychology & health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. How does the Kids SIPAmerican journal of agricultural economics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Jamie M Zoellnera Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise , Virginia Tech , Blacksburg , VA 24061 , USA.
Kathleen J Portera Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise , Virginia Tech , Blacksburg , VA 24061 , USA.
Yvonnes Chenb School of Journalism , University of Kansas , Lawrence , KS 66045 , USA.
Valisa E Hedricka Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise , Virginia Tech , Blacksburg , VA 24061 , USA.
Wen Youc Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Virginia Tech , Blacksburg , VA 24061 , USA.
Maja Hickmana Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise , Virginia Tech , Blacksburg , VA 24061 , USA.
Paul A Estabrooksd Department of Health Promotion, Social and Behavioral Health , 986075 Nebraska Medical Center, University of Nebraska Medical Center , Omaha , NE 68198-6075 , USA.

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM115458 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI GUDA, CHITTIBABU · 2016 to 2025
$42.8M
SIPsmartER: A nutrition literacy approach to reducing sugar-sweetened beveragesR01CA154364 · NCI · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI ZOELLNER, JAMIE · 2011 to 2015
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154364NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM115458
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGuided by the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and health literacy concepts, SIPsmartER is a six-month multicomponent intervention effective at improving SSB behaviours. Using SIPsmartER data, this study explores prediction of SSB behavioural intention (BI) and behaviour from TPB constructs using: (1) cross-sectional and prospective models and (2) 11 single-item assessments from interactive voice response (IVR) technology.

designQuasi-experimental design, including pre- and post-outcome data and repeated-measures process data of 155 intervention participants.

main outcome measuresValidated multi-item TPB measures, single-item TPB measures, and self-reported SSB behaviours. Hypothesised relationships were investigated using correlation and multiple regression models.

resultsTPB constructs explained 32% of the variance cross sectionally and 20% prospectively in BI; and explained 13-20% of variance cross sectionally and 6% prospectively. Single-item scale models were significant, yet explained less variance. All IVR models predicting BI (average 21%, range 6-38%) and behaviour (average 30%, range 6-55%) were significant.

conclusionFindings are interpreted in the context of other cross-sectional, prospective and experimental TPB health and dietary studies. Findings advance experimental application of the TPB, including understanding constructs at outcome and process time points and applying theory in all intervention development, implementation and evaluation phases.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyBeveragesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDietFemaleHumansIntentionMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesPsychological TheorySelf ReportSweetening AgentsTreatment OutcomeSweetening Agentsbehavioural researchbeveragesquasi experimentalrural populationtheory of planned behaviour

Identifiers

PMID28165771
PMCPMC5568048

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.