The Effects of Positive Affect and Episodic Future Thinking on Temporal Discounting and Healthy Food Demand and Choice Among Overweight and Obese Individuals: Protocol for a Pilot 2×2 Factorial Randomized Controlled Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Unhealthy behaviors (eg, poor food choices) contribute to obesity and numerous negative health outcomes, including multiple types of cancer and cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. To promote healthy food choice, diet interventions should build on the dual-system model to target the regulation and reward mechanisms that guide eating behavior. Episodic future thinking (EFT) has been shown to strengthen regulation mechanisms by reducing unhealthy food choice and temporal discounting (TD), a process of placing greater value on smaller immediate rewards over larger future rewards. However, these interventions do not target the reward mechanisms that could support healthy eating and strengthen the impact of EFT-anchored programs. Increasing positive affect (PosA) related to healthy food choices may target reward mechanisms by enhancing the rewarding effects of healthy eating. An intervention that increases self-regulation regarding unhealthy foods and the reward value of healthy foods will likely have a greater impact on eating behavior compared with interventions focused on either process alone. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to introduce a protocol that tests the independent and interactive effects of EFT and PosA on TD, food choice, and food demand in overweight and obese adults. METHODS: This protocol describes a factorial, randomized, controlled pilot study that employs a 2 (affective imagery: positive, neutral) by 2 (EFT: yes, no) design in which participants are randomized to 1 of 4 guided imagery intervention arms. In total, 156 eligible participants will complete 2 lab visits separated by 5 days. At visit 1, participants complete surveys; listen to the audio guided imagery intervention; and complete TD, food demand, and food choice tasks. At visit 2, participants complete TD, food demand, and food choice tasks and surveys. Participants complete a daily food frequency questionnaire between visits 1 and 2. Analyses will compare primary outcome measures at baseline, postintervention, and at follow-up across treatment arms. RESULTS: Funding notification was received on April 27, 2017, and the protocol was approved by the institutional review board on October 6, 2017. Feasibility testing of the protocol was conducted from February 21, 2018, to April 18, 2018, among the first 32 participants. As no major protocol changes were required at the end of the feasibility phase, these 32 participants were included in the target sample of 156 participants. Recruitment, therefore, continued immediately after the feasibility phase. When this manuscript was submitted, 84 participants had completed the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Our research goal is to develop novel, theory-based interventions to promote and improve healthy decision-making and behaviors. The findings will advance decision-making research and have the potential to generate new neuroscience and psychological research to further understand these mechanisms and their interactions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11704675; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11704675 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/760ouOoKG). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12265.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».