MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797761658 · doi:10.2196/resprot.8703

Application of Behavior Change Techniques in a Personalized Nutrition Electronic Health Intervention Study: Protocol for the Web-Based Food4Me Randomized Controlled Trial

2018· article· en· W2797761658 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna L. Macready, Rosalind Fallaize, Laurie T. Butler, Judi A. Ellis, Sharron Kuznesof, Lynn J. Frewer, Carlos Celis‐Morales, Katherine M. Livingstone, Vera Araújo‐Soares, A.R.H. Fischer, Barbara Stewart‐Knox, John C. Mathers, Julie A. Lovegrove

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFP7 Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, BiotechnologyMedical Research Council
KeywordsBehavior changePsychological interventionProtocol (science)Intervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialBehavior change methodsComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)Behaviour changeThe InternetWeb applicationMedicineApplied psychologyPsychologyAlternative medicineWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To determine the efficacy of behavior change techniques applied in dietary and physical activity intervention studies, it is first necessary to record and describe techniques that have been used during such interventions. Published frameworks used in dietary and smoking cessation interventions undergo continuous development, and most are not adapted for Web-based delivery. The Food4Me study (N=1607) provided the opportunity to use existing frameworks to describe standardized Web-based techniques employed in a large-scale, internet-based intervention to change dietary behavior and physical activity. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were (1) to describe techniques embedded in the Food4Me study design and explain the selection rationale and (2) to demonstrate the use of behavior change technique taxonomies, develop standard operating procedures for training, and identify strengths and limitations of the Food4Me framework that will inform its use in future studies. METHODS: The 6-month randomized controlled trial took place simultaneously in seven European countries, with participants receiving one of four levels of personalized advice (generalized, intake-based, intake+phenotype-based, and intake+phenotype+gene-based). A three-phase approach was taken: (1) existing taxonomies were reviewed and techniques were identified a priori for possible inclusion in the Food4Me study, (2) a standard operating procedure was developed to maintain consistency in the use of methods and techniques across research centers, and (3) the Food4Me behavior change technique framework was reviewed and updated post intervention. An analysis of excluded techniques was also conducted. RESULTS: Of 46 techniques identified a priori as being applicable to Food4Me, 17 were embedded in the intervention design; 11 were from a dietary taxonomy, and 6 from a smoking cessation taxonomy. In addition, the four-category smoking cessation framework structure was adopted for clarity of communication. Smoking cessation texts were adapted for dietary use where necessary. A posteriori, a further 9 techniques were included. Examination of excluded items highlighted the distinction between techniques considered appropriate for face-to-face versus internet-based delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The use of existing taxonomies facilitated the description and standardization of techniques used in Food4Me. We recommend that for complex studies of this nature, technique analysis should be conducted a priori to develop standardized procedures and training and reviewed a posteriori to audit the techniques actually adopted. The present framework description makes a valuable contribution to future systematic reviews and meta-analyses that explore technique efficacy and underlying psychological constructs. This was a novel application of the behavior change taxonomies and was the first internet-based personalized nutrition intervention to use such a framework remotely. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01530139; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01530139 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6y8XYUft1).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.424 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207