Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973716›Full record

SynthesisThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2023

Digital behaviour change interventions to increase vegetable intake in adults: a systematic review.

Katherine M Livingstone, Jonathan C Rawstorn, Stephanie R Partridge, Stephanie L Godrich, Sarah A McNaughton, Gilly A Hendrie, Lauren C Blekkenhorst, Ralph Maddison, Yuxin Zhang, Scott Barnett and 3 more

Open access · goldFull text readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Feasibility of a co-designed and personalised intervention to improve vegetable intake in rural-dwelling young adults.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Katherine M LivingstoneInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, VIC, 3125, Melbourne, Australia. k.livingstone@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9682-7541
Jonathan C RawstornInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Stephanie R PartridgeEngagement and Co-Design Research Hub, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Stephanie L GodrichSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Nutrition and Health Innovation Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Bunbury, WA, 6230, Australia.
Sarah A McNaughtonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Gilly A HendrieHuman Health Program, Health & Biosecurity, CSIRO, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Lauren C BlekkenhorstSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Nutrition and Health Innovation Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
Ralph MaddisonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Yuxin ZhangInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Scott BarnettApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute (A²I²), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
John C MathersHuman Nutrition & Exercise Research Centre, Centre for Healthier Lives, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK.
Maria PackardThe National Heart Foundation of Australia, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Laura AlstonDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Australia.
Deakin University · AUEdith Cowan University · AUCSIRO Health and Biosecurity · AUNational Heart Foundation of Australia · AUNewcastle University · GBThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P020941/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital interventions may help address low vegetable intake in adults, however there is limited understanding of the features that make them effective. We systematically reviewed digital interventions to increase vegetable intake to 1) describe the effectiveness of the interventions; 2) examine links between effectiveness and use of co-design, personalisation, behavioural theories, and/or a policy framework; and 3) identify other features that contribute to effectiveness.

methodsA systematic search strategy was used to identify eligible studies from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, INFORMIT, IEEE Xplore and Clinical Trial Registries, published between January 2000 and August 2022. Digital interventions to increase vegetable intake were included, with effective interventions identified based on statistically significant improvement in vegetable intake. To identify policy-action gaps, studies were mapped across the three domains of the NOURISHING framework (i.e., behaviour change communication, food environment, and food system). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools for randomized, cluster randomized and non-randomized trials.

resultsOf the 1,347 records identified, 30 studies were included. Risk of bias was high or serious in most studies (n = 25/30; 83%). Approximately one quarter of the included interventions (n = 8) were effective at improving vegetable intake. While the features of effective and ineffective interventions were similar, embedding of behaviour change theories (89% vs 61%) and inclusion of stakeholders in the design of the intervention (50% vs 38%) were more common among effective interventions. Only one (ineffective) intervention used true co-design. Although fewer effective interventions included personalisation (67% vs 81%), the degree of personalisation varied considerably between studies. All interventions mapped across the NOURISHING framework behaviour change communication domain, with one ineffective intervention also mapping across the food environment domain.

conclusionFew digital interventions identified in this review were effective for increasing vegetable intake. Embedding behaviour change theories and involving stakeholders in intervention design may increase the likelihood of success. The under-utilisation of comprehensive co-design methods presents an opportunity to ensure that personalisation approaches better meet the needs of target populations. Moreover, future digital interventions should address both behaviour change and food environment influences on vegetable intake.

Indexed as

FruitVegetablesAdultFeeding BehaviorHumansRewardAdultsBehaviour changeCo-designDigitalInterventionPersonalisationSystematic reviewVegetable intake

Identifiers

PMID36973716
PMCPMC10042405
OpenAlexW4360992151

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read85
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.