The impact of self-efficacy and implementation intentions-based interventions on fruit and vegetable intake among adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the effect of interventions designed for people who do not eat yet the recommended daily fruit and vegetable intake (FVI) but have a positive intention to do so. Adults (N = 163) aged 20-65 were randomised into four groups: implementation intentions (II group), self-efficacy (SE group), combination of II + SE group) and a control group receiving written information on nutrition. Study variables were measured at baseline, post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up. At follow-up, compared to the control group, FVI increased significantly in the II and II + SE groups (1.5 and 1.9 servings per day, respectively). Most psychosocial variables significantly increased compared to the control group, with the exception of SE for vegetable intake (VI). Moreover, at 3-month follow-up, change in FVI was mediated by changes in fruit intake (FI) intention and VI action planning. In conclusion, II interventions were efficient to increase FVI, with or without consideration for the development of SE. Thus, future studies should favour the adoption of this approach to bridge the intention-behaviour gap for FVI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it