A randomized, controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of an online intervention targeting vitamin D intake, knowledge and status among young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin D plays a key role in bone health. Consuming adequate vitamin D during young adulthood is important due to the development of peak bone mass; however, many Canadian young adults do not meet vitamin D recommendations. This study aimed to improve knowledge, perceptions, dietary intake and blood concentrations of vitamin D among a sample of young adults. Using a pre-post design, 90 Ontario adults (38 men, 52 women; 18–25 years), were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. Participants completed a socio-demographic survey, pre-post food frequency questionnaire, and a vitamin D knowledge questionnaire (3 time-points). The intervention group watched a video, received online information and tracked intake of vitamin D using a mobile application for 12 weeks. A sub-sample of participants completed pre-post blood 25(OH)D3 tests. Univariate ANOVA tested pre-post between-group differences in vitamin D intake and status. Repeated-measures ANOVA tested between-group differences in vitamin D knowledge and perceptions across 3 time-points. Mean vitamin D intake in the sample increased significantly from pre-test (M = 407, SD = 460 IU) to post-test (M = 619, SD = 655 IU), t(88) = 5.37, p < 0.001. Mean intake increased significantly more in the intervention than control group after controlling for gender and education, F(1, 85) = 4.09, p = 0.046. Mean blood vitamin D3 was significantly higher among non-Caucasian than Caucasian participants at baseline, t(56.7) = 3.49, p = 0.001. Mean blood vitamin D3 increased significantly from pre-test (M = 28, SD = 16 nmol/L) to post-test (M = 43, SD = 29 nmol/L), t(53) = 11.36, p < 0.001, but did not differ significantly between groups. The increase in vitamin D knowledge from time 1–3 was significantly higher in the intervention than control group (t(88) = 2.26, p = 0.03). The intervention group (M = 3.52, SE = 0.13) had higher overall perceived importance of vitamin D supplementation than the control (M = 3.16, SE = 0.12), F(1, 88) = 4.38, p = 0.04, ηp 2 = 0.05. Although recommendations suggest blood 25(OH)D3 concentrations of ≥50-75 nmol/L, vitamin D status was below national recommendations. While participating in an intervention did not improve vitamin D status, it led to increased vitamin D intake, knowledge and perceived importance of supplementation. ClinicalTrails.gov registration #: NCT02118129 .
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".