Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31142536›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Accounting for health literacy and intervention preferences when reducing unhealthy snacking: protocol for an online randomised controlled trial.

Julie Ayre, Erin Cvejic, Carissa Bonner, Robin M Turner, Stephen D Walter, Kirsten J McCaffery

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Julie AyreFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5279-5189
Erin CvejicFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Carissa BonnerFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Robin M TurnerDivision of Health Sciences, Biostatistics Unit, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Stephen D WalterFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Kirsten J McCafferyFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUImpact · CAUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealth literacy describes the cognitive and social skills that individuals use to access, understand and act on health information. Health literacy interventions typically take the 'universal precautions approach' where all consumers are presented with simplified materials. Although this approach can improve knowledge and comprehension, its impact on complex behaviours is less clear. Systematic reviews also suggest that health literacy interventions underuse volitional strategies (such as planning) that play an important role in behaviour change. A recent study found volitional strategies may need to be tailored to the participant's health literacy. The current study aims to replicate these findings in a sample of people who have diabetes and/or are overweight or obese as measured by body mass index, and to investigate the most effective method of allocating an action plan to a participant to reduce unhealthy snacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to recruit approximately 2400 participants at baseline. Participants will receive one of two alternative online action plans intended to reduce unhealthy snacking ('standard' action plan or 'literacy-sensitive' action plan). Participants will be randomised to a method of allocation to an action plan: (1) random allocation; (2) allocation by health literacy screening tool or (3) allocation by participant selection. Primary outcome is self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks during the previous month. Multiple linear regression will evaluate the impact of health literacy on intervention effectiveness. The analysis will also identify independent contributions of each action plan, method of allocation, health literacy and participant selections on unhealthy snacking at 4-week follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2017/793). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, conferences and updates with collaborating public health bodies (Diabetes New South Wales (NSW) & Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and Western Sydney Local Health District). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001409268; Pre-results.

Indexed as

Research DesignSnacksAustraliaDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Health LiteracyHealth PromotionHumansInternetOverweightPatient PreferenceRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicgeneral diabetespreventive medicinepublic health

Identifiers

PMID31142536
PMCPMC6549624
OpenAlexW2947393299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.