↓ Skip to main content

A multi-level intervention in subsidized housing sites to increase fruit and vegetable access and intake: Rationale, design and methods of the ‘Live Well, Viva Bien’ cluster randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 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
A multi-level intervention in subsidized housing sites to increase fruit and vegetable access and intake: Rationale, design and methods of the ‘Live Well, Viva Bien’ cluster randomized trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3141-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim M. Gans, Gemma Gorham, Patricia M. Risica, Akilah Dulin-Keita, Laura Dionne, Tina Gao, Sarah Peters, Ludovica Principato

Abstract

Adequate fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake is important for disease prevention. Yet, most Americans, especially low-income and racial/ethnic minorities, do not eat adequate amounts. These disparities are partly attributable to food environments in low-income neighborhoods where residents often have limited access to affordable, healthful food and easy access to inexpensive, unhealthful foods. Increasing access to affordable healthful food in underserved neighborhoods through mobile markets is a promising, year-round strategy for improving dietary behaviors and reducing F&V intake disparities. However, to date, there have been no randomized controlled trials studying their effectiveness. The objective of the 'Live Well, Viva Bien' (LWVB) cluster randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the efficacy of a multicomponent mobile market intervention at increasing F&V intake among residents of subsidized housing complexes. One housing complex served as a pilot site for the intervention group and the remaining 14 demographically-matched sites were randomized into either the intervention or control group. The intervention group received bimonthly, discount, mobile, fresh F&V markets in conjunction with a nutrition education intervention (two F&V campaigns, newsletters, DVDs and cooking demonstrations) for 12 months. The control group received physical activity and stress reduction interventions. Outcome measures include F&V intake (measured by two validated F&V screeners at baseline, six-month and twelve-months) along with potential psychosocial mediating variables. Extensive quantitative and qualitative process evaluation was also conducted throughout the study. Modifying neighborhood food environments in ways that increase access to affordable, healthful food is a promising strategy for improving dietary behaviors among low-income, racial and ethnic minority groups at increased risk for obesity and other food-related chronic diseases. Discount, mobile F&V markets address all the major barriers to eating more F&V (high cost, poor quality, limited access and limited time to shop and cook) and provide a year-round solution to limited access to healthful food in low-income neighborhoods. LWVB is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of mobile markets at increasing F&V intake. If proven efficacious at increasing F&V consumption, LWVB could be disseminated widely to neighborhoods that have low access to fresh F&V. Clinicatrials.gov registration number: NCT02669472 First Received: January 19, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 238 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 17%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 74 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 13%
Social Sciences 29 12%
Psychology 17 7%
Sports and Recreations 7 3%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 94 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 August 2017.
All research outputs
#5,320,938
of 25,482,409 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,311
of 17,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,397
of 367,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#127
of 313 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,482,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 367,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 313 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.