Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200514›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Co-design of a personalised digital intervention to improve vegetable intake in adults living in Australian rural communities.

Katherine Mary Livingstone, Jonathan C Rawstorn, Laura Alston, Stephanie R Partridge, Amber Bastian, Kate Dullaghan, Sarah A McNaughton, Gilly A Hendrie, Lauren C Blekkenhorst, Ralph Maddison and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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
  3. Co-Designing a Digital Stroke Prevention Platform: Leveraging Lived Experience and Expert Advice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Katherine Mary LivingstoneInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 3220, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. k.livingstone@deakin.edu.au.
Jonathan C RawstornInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 3220, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Laura AlstonDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, 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.
Amber BastianInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 3220, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Kate DullaghanInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 3220, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Sarah A McNaughtonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 3220, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Gilly A HendrieHuman Health Program, Health & Biosecurity, CSIRO, 5000, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lauren C BlekkenhorstNutrition and Health Innovation Research Institute, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
Ralph MaddisonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 3220, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Yuxin ZhangInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 3220, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Scott BarnettApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute (A²I²), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
John C MathersHuman Nutrition Research Centre, Centre for Healthier Lives, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, NE2 4HH, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Stephanie L GodrichSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 6230, Bunbury, WA, Australia.
Deakin University · AUCSIRO Health and Biosecurity · AUEdith Cowan University · AUNewcastle University · GBRoyal Perth Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P020941/1National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant APP1172987National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant APP1173803National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship ID106646
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiets low in vegetables are a main contributor to the health burden experienced by Australians living in rural communities. Given the ubiquity of smartphones and access to the Internet, digital interventions may offer an accessible delivery model for a dietary intervention in rural communities. However, no digital interventions to address low vegetable intake have been co-designed with adults living in rural areas. This paper describes the co-design of a digital intervention to improve vegetable intake with rural community members and research partners.

methodsActive participants in the co-design process were adults ≥ 18 years living in three rural Australian communities (total n = 57) and research partners (n = 4) representing three local rural governments and one peak non-government health organisation. An iterative co-design process was undertaken to understand the needs (pre-design phase) and ideas (generative phase) of the target population. Eight online workshops and a community survey were conducted between July and December 2021. The MoSCoW prioritisation method was used to help participants identify the 'Must-have, Should-have, Could-have, and Won't-have or will not have right now' features and functions of the digital intervention. Workshops were transcribed and inductively analysed using NVivo. Convergent and divergent themes were identified between the workshops and community survey to identify how to implement the digital intervention in the community.

resultsConsensus was reached on a concept for a digital intervention that addressed individual and food environment barriers to vegetable intake, specific to rural communities. Implementation recommendations centred on (i) food literacy approaches to improve skills via access to vegetable-rich recipes and healthy eating resources, (ii) access to personalisation options and behaviour change support, and (iii) improving the community food environment by providing information on and access to local food initiatives.

conclusionsRural-dwelling adults expressed preferences for personalised intervention features that can enhance food literacy and engagement with community food environments. This research will inform the development of the prototyping (evaluation phase) and feasibility testing (post-design phase) of this intervention.

Indexed as

DietRural PopulationVegetablesAdultAustralasian PeopleAustraliaDigital HealthHumansAdultsBehaviour changeCo-designDigital healthInterventionVegetable intakeWorkshop

Identifiers

PMID38200514
PMCPMC10782626
OpenAlexW4390694475

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.