Psychosocial determinants of fruit and vegetable intake in adult population: a systematic review.

Laurence Guillaumie, Gaston Godin, Lydi-Anne Vézina-Im
Author Information
  1. Laurence Guillaumie: Research Group on Behaviour and Health, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. laurence.guillaumie.1@ulaval.ca.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that fruit and vegetable intake (FVI) plays a protective role against major diseases. Despite this protective role and the obesity pandemic context, populations in Western countries usually eat far less than five servings of fruits and vegetables per day. In order to increase the efficiency of interventions, they should be tailored to the most important determinants or mediators of FVI. The objective was to systematically review social cognitive theory-based studies of FVI and to identify its main psychosocial determinants.
METHODS: Published papers were systematically sought using Current Contents (2007-2009) and Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Proquest and Thesis, as well as Cinhal (1980-2009). Additional studies were identified by a manual search in the bibliographies. Search terms included fruit, vegetable, behaviour, intention, as well as names of specific theories. Only studies predicting FVI or intention to eat fruits and vegetables in the general population and using a social cognitive theory were included. Independent extraction of information was carried out by two persons using predefined data fields, including study quality criteria.
RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were identified and included, 15 studying only the determinants of FVI, seven studying the determinants of FVI and intention and one studying only the determinants of intention. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. The random-effect R2 observed for the prediction of FVI was 0.23 and it was 0.34 for the prediction of intention. Multicomponent theoretical frameworks and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) were most often used. A number of methodological moderators influenced the efficacy of prediction of FVI. The most consistent variables predicting behaviour were habit, motivation and goals, beliefs about capabilities, knowledge and taste; those explaining intention were beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences and perceived social influences.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the TPB and social cognitive theory (SCT) are the preferable social cognitive theories to predict behaviour and TPB to explain intention. Efficacy of prediction was nonetheless negatively affected by methodological factors such as the study design and the quality of psychosocial and behavioural measures.

References

  1. Ann Behav Med. 2007 Nov-Dec;34(3):304-12 [PMID: 18020940]
  2. Health Educ Res. 2005 Jun;20(3):294-7 [PMID: 15632097]
  3. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):301-6 [PMID: 11319625]
  4. Appetite. 2004 Apr;42(2):157-66 [PMID: 15010180]
  5. Am J Health Behav. 2007 Jan-Feb;31(1):3-12 [PMID: 17181457]
  6. Int J Epidemiol. 1997 Feb;26(1):1-13 [PMID: 9126498]
  7. Am J Health Promot. 1995 Nov-Dec;10(2):98-104 [PMID: 10160052]
  8. BMJ. 2004 Feb 7;328(7435):343-5 [PMID: 14764503]
  9. Lancet. 2006 Jan 28;367(9507):320-6 [PMID: 16443039]
  10. Am J Prev Med. 2008 Jun;34(6):535-543 [PMID: 18471592]
  11. Ann Behav Med. 2008 Jun;35(3):358-62 [PMID: 18633685]
  12. Public Health Nutr. 2004 Feb;7(1A):123-46 [PMID: 14972057]
  13. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;80(2):348-56 [PMID: 15277155]
  14. J Health Psychol. 2003 May;8(3):347-60 [PMID: 14670213]
  15. Nebr Symp Motiv. 1980;27:195-259 [PMID: 7242748]
  16. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Jun 19;134(12):1106-14 [PMID: 11412050]
  17. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996 Aug;96(8):771-7 [PMID: 8683008]
  18. Appetite. 1995 Dec;25(3):285-96 [PMID: 8746967]
  19. Health Psychol. 2003 Mar;22(2):148-55 [PMID: 12683735]
  20. Public Health Nutr. 2007 Jul;10(7):701-11 [PMID: 17381950]
  21. Br J Health Psychol. 2005 Feb;10(Pt 1):115-31 [PMID: 15826338]
  22. Health Educ Res. 2005 Jun;20(3):275-90 [PMID: 15632099]
  23. Br J Soc Psychol. 1999 Sep;38 ( Pt 3):225-44 [PMID: 10520477]
  24. Int J Obes (Lond). 2005 Sep;29 Suppl 2:S116-26 [PMID: 16385763]
  25. Health Educ Res. 2005 Jun;20(3):291-3 [PMID: 15632098]
  26. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006 Mar-Apr;38(2):73-81 [PMID: 16595285]
  27. Nutr Cancer. 2006;54(1):111-42 [PMID: 16800779]
  28. JAMA. 1999 Oct 13;282(14):1353-8 [PMID: 10527182]
  29. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006 Sep;106(9):1364-8 [PMID: 16963341]
  30. BMJ. 2001 Mar 31;322(7289):757-63 [PMID: 11282859]
  31. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):559S-569S [PMID: 12936950]
  32. Lancet. 2005 Nov 19;366(9499):1784-93 [PMID: 16298215]
  33. JAMA. 1999 Oct 27;282(16):1539-46 [PMID: 10546693]
  34. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Aug;108(8):1315-22 [PMID: 18656571]
  35. J Nutr. 2008 May;138(5):946-53 [PMID: 18424606]
  36. Am J Health Promot. 1996 Nov-Dec;11(2):87-98 [PMID: 10163601]
  37. Health Psychol. 1993 Jul;12(4):324-33 [PMID: 8404807]
  38. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1996 Spring;2(2):27-35 [PMID: 10186666]
  39. Health Educ Behav. 2004 Apr;31(2):143-64 [PMID: 15090118]
  40. Eur J Cancer. 2000 Mar;36(5):636-46 [PMID: 10738129]
  41. J Am Coll Nutr. 1993 Apr;12(2):176-85 [PMID: 8385165]
  42. Public Health Nutr. 1998 Mar;1(1):61-8 [PMID: 10555532]
  43. Am J Public Health. 1997 May;87(5):747-54 [PMID: 9184500]
  44. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005 Nov-Dec;37(6):306-14 [PMID: 16242062]
  45. J Am Diet Assoc. 2000 Dec;100(12):1511-21 [PMID: 11138444]
  46. Annu Rev Nutr. 1999;19:17-40 [PMID: 10448515]
  47. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26-33 [PMID: 15692000]
  48. Health Psychol. 2006 Sep;25(5):626-34 [PMID: 17014280]
  49. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Oct;72(4):922-8 [PMID: 11010932]
  50. BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490 [PMID: 15205295]
  51. Circulation. 1996 Oct 1;94(7):1795-800 [PMID: 8840887]
  52. Psychol Bull. 1999 Jan;125(1):90-132 [PMID: 9990846]
  53. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005 Apr 04;2(1):2 [PMID: 15807898]
  54. Health Psychol. 2007 May;26(3):259-67 [PMID: 17500612]
  55. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998 Feb;7(2):119-26 [PMID: 9488586]
  56. Nutrition. 1999 Jun;15(6):523-6 [PMID: 10378216]
  57. Prev Med. 1995 May;24(3):221-8 [PMID: 7644443]
  58. Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):673-93 [PMID: 17592961]
  59. Nutr Rev. 2004 Jan;62(1):1-17 [PMID: 14995052]
  60. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006 Jun;106(6):833-40 [PMID: 16720124]
  61. Nutrition. 2006 May;22(5):504-11 [PMID: 16500082]
  62. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001 Dec;40(Pt 4):471-99 [PMID: 11795063]
  63. Am J Health Promot. 2001 Nov-Dec;16(2):69-78 [PMID: 11727591]
  64. J Cancer Educ. 2000 Fall;15(3):156-63 [PMID: 11019764]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0FVIintentiondeterminantssocialcognitivestudiesbehaviourpredictionfruitvegetableusingincludedtheorystudyingTPBbeliefsintakeprotectiveroleeatfruitsvegetablessystematicallyreviewpsychosocialwellidentifiedtheoriespredictingstudyquality230methodologicalcapabilitiesBACKGROUND:AccumulatingevidencesuggestsplaysmajordiseasesDespiteobesitypandemiccontextpopulationsWesterncountriesusuallyfarlessfiveservingsperdayorderincreaseefficiencyinterventionstailoredimportantmediatorsobjectivetheory-basedidentifymainMETHODS:PublishedpaperssoughtCurrentContents2007-2009MedlineEmbasePsycINFOProquestThesisCinhal1980-2009AdditionalmanualsearchbibliographiesSearchtermsnamesspecificgeneralpopulationIndependentextractioninformationcarriedtwopersonspredefineddatafieldsincludingcriteriaRESULTS:total15sevenonepooledanalysesbasedrandom-effectsmodelsrandom-effectR2observed34MulticomponenttheoreticalframeworksplannedoftenusednumbermoderatorsinfluencedefficacyconsistentvariableshabitmotivationgoalsknowledgetasteexplainingconsequencesperceivedinfluencesCONCLUSIONS:resultssuggestSCTpreferablepredictexplainEfficacynonethelessnegativelyaffectedfactorsdesignbehaviouralmeasuresPsychosocialadultpopulation:systematic

Similar Articles

Cited By