Trial reportPloS one2019
Randomized trial of planning tools to reduce unhealthy snacking: Implications for health literacy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relationship between health literacy, food literacy, and dietary choices-a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Trial
- Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence.Nature human behaviour · 2021Trial
- Effects of health literacy, screening, and participant choice on action plans for reducing unhealthy snacking in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2020Trial
- Implementation intentions as an acceptable health behaviour change strategy? Insights from people with lower socio-economic position in think-aloud interviews.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Health Information Source Patterns and Dietary Variety among Older Adults Living in Rural Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- The future of allergic rhinitis management: A partnership between healthcare professionals and patients.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Article
- Addressing Behavioral Barriers to COVID-19 Testing With Health Literacy-Sensitive eHealth Interventions: Results From 2 National Surveys and 2 Randomized Experiments.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGuidance to address health literacy often focuses on health education rather than tools to facilitate action, despite action being important for self-management. This study evaluated an online intervention informed by health literate design principles and behavior change theory to reduce unhealthy snacking.
methods440 participants were recruited online and randomized to an intervention: 1) Health-literate action plan (guided implementation intention); 2) Standard action plan (self-guided implementation intention); 3) Education (healthy snacking fact-sheet). The primary outcome was self-reported unhealthy snacking. Follow-up was at 1 month.
results373 participants (84.8%) completed follow-up. Half the sample had adequate health literacy (52%), and the other half had low (24%) or possibly low (25%) health literacy, as measured by Newest Vital Sign (NVS). At follow-up, lower health literacy was associated with more unhealthy snacks and there was no overall difference between intervention groups. However, participants with lower health literacy who used the health-literate action plan reported less unhealthy snacking compared to the standard action plan; the reverse was true for those with higher health literacy scores (b = 1.7, p = 0.03). People scoring 2 points below the mean NVS (M = 3.4, SD = 2.0) using the health-literate action plan reported eating 8 fewer serves of unhealthy snacks, whereas people scoring 2 points above the mean NVS reported eating 6 more serves of unhealthy snacks using the same tool.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the universal precautions approach currently recommended for health information may be less effective for facilitating action than tailoring to health literacy level.
trial registrationANZCTR identifier: ACTRN12617001194358.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.