↓ Skip to main content

Mobile Technology for Vegetable Consumption: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study in Overweight Adults

Overview of attention for article published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mobile Technology for Vegetable Consumption: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study in Overweight Adults
Published in
JMIR mHealth and uHealth, May 2016
DOI 10.2196/mhealth.5146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Ann Mummah, Maya Mathur, Abby C King, Christopher D Gardner, Stephen Sutton

Abstract

Mobile apps present a potentially cost-effective tool for delivering behavior change interventions at scale, but no known studies have tested the efficacy of apps as a tool to specifically increase vegetable consumption among overweight adults. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the initial efficacy and user acceptability of a theory-driven mobile app to increase vegetable consumption. A total of 17 overweight adults aged 42.0 (SD 7.3) years with a body mass index (BMI) of 32.0 (SD 3.5) kg/m(2) were randomized to the use of Vegethon (a fully automated theory-driven mobile app enabling self-monitoring of vegetable consumption, goal setting, feedback, and social comparison) or a wait-listed control condition. All participants were recruited from an ongoing 12-month weight loss trial (parent trial). Researchers who performed data analysis were blinded to condition assignment. The primary outcome measure was daily vegetable consumption, assessed using an adapted version of the validated Harvard Food Frequency Questionnaire administered at baseline and 12 weeks after randomization. An analysis of covariance was used to assess differences in 12-week vegetable consumption between intervention and control conditions, controlling for baseline. App usability and satisfaction were measured via a 21-item post-intervention questionnaire. Using intention-to-treat analyses, all enrolled participants (intervention: 8; control: 9) were analyzed. Of the 8 participants randomized to the intervention, 5 downloaded the app and logged their vegetable consumption a mean of 0.7 (SD 0.9) times per day, 2 downloaded the app but did not use it, and 1 never downloaded it. Consumption of vegetables was significantly greater among the intervention versus control condition at the end of the 12-week pilot study (adjusted mean difference: 7.4 servings; 95% CI 1.4-13.5; P=.02). Among secondary outcomes defined a priori, there was significantly greater consumption of green leafy vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and dark yellow vegetables (adjusted mean difference: 2.6, 1.6, and 0.8 servings; 95% CI 0.1-5.0, 0.1-3.2, and 0.3-1.4; P=.04, P=.04, and P=.004, respectively). Participants reported positive experiences with the app, including strong agreement with the statements "I have found Vegethon easy to use" and "I would recommend Vegethon to a friend" (mean 4.6 (SD 0.6) and 4.2 (SD 0.8), respectively, (on a 5-point scale). Vegethon demonstrated initial efficacy and user acceptability. A mobile app intervention may be useful for increasing vegetable consumption among overweight adults. The small sample size prevented precise estimates of effect sizes. Given the improved health outcomes associated with increases in vegetable consumption, these findings indicate the need for larger, longer-term evaluations of Vegethon and similar technologies among overweight adults and other suitable target groups. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01826591; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01826591 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6hYDw2AOB).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Researcher 16 18%
Unspecified 16 18%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 24 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Computer Science 13 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Psychology 7 8%
Other 24 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,075,354
of 13,370,991 outputs
Outputs from JMIR mHealth and uHealth
#833
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,267
of 264,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JMIR mHealth and uHealth
#44
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,370,991 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.