An Online Nutrition Education Program Targeting Intentions and Related Determinants Towards Dietary Supplement Use: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Dietary supplement use among varsity athletes is influenced by various psychological and social factors, yet there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of educational interventions in influencing these determinants. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of an online nutrition education program on improvements in intentions and related determinants towards the use of dietary supplements in varsity athletes at the University of Guelph in Canada. The theory of planned behavior served as the theoretical framework for examining these determinants as predictors of behavior change. Methods: A randomized wait-list controlled trial was conducted on a total of 30 varsity athletes, randomized into experimental (n = 18) and control (n = 12) groups. The experimental group received access to an online nutrition education program focused on sports nutrition and dietary supplements, while the control group did not have access during the study. Results: There was a significant (p < 0.05) intervention effect on varsity athletes’ attitudes (Mean1(control) = 13.17; Mean1(experimental) = 13.56; Mean2(control) = 13.92; Mean2(experimental) = 12.11), perceived behavioral control (Mean1(control) = 15.92; Mean1(experimental) = 16.11; Mean2(control) = 16.33; Mean2(experimental) = 18.39), and intentions (Mean1(control) = 12.5; Mean1(experimental) = 12.89; Mean2(control) = 11.58; Mean2(experimental) = 9.44) towards dietary supplement use. No significant changes were made to descriptive and injunctive norms. Conclusions: These findings suggest that this nutrition education program significantly improved intentions and related determinants towards dietary supplement use in varsity athletes. The absence of a successful change in subjective norm should be a focus for similar future interventions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".