CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 138Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorBehavioral Health and InterventionsMedia Influence and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A computerized social cognitive intervention for nutrition behavior: Direct and mediated effects on fat, fiber, fruits, and vegetables, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations among food shoppers

Anderson, Eileen S., Winett, Richard A., Wojcik, Janet R., Winett, Sheila G., Bowden, Todd·2001·Annals of Behavioral Medicine
DOI 10.1207/s15324796abm2302_3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined the direct and mediated impact of a self-administered, computer-based intervention on nutrition behavior self-efficacy, and outcome expectations among supermarket food shoppers. The intervention, housed in kiosks in supermarkets and based on social cognitive theory, used tailored information and self-regulation strategies delivered in 15 brief weekly segments. The study sample (N = 277), stratified and randomly assigned to treatment or control, was 96% female, was 92% White, had a median annual income of about $35,000, and had a mean education of 14. 78 +/- 2.11 years. About 12% of the sample reported incomes of $20,000 or less, and about 20% reported 12 years or fewer of education. Analysis of covariance immediately after intervention and at a 4- to 6-month follow-up found that treatment led to improved levels of fat, fiber, and fruits and vegetables. Treatment also led to higher levels of nutrition-related self-efficacy, physical outcome expectations, and social outcome expectations. Logistic regression analysis determined that the treatment group was more likely than the control group to attain goals for fat, fiber, and fruits and vegetables at posttest and to attain goals for fat at follow-up. Latent variable structural equation analysis revealed self-efficacy and physical outcome expectations mediated treatment effects on nutrition. In addition, physical outcome expectations mediated the effect of self-efficacy on nutrition outcomes. Implications for future computer-based health promotion interventions are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15324796abm2302_3

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:Consensus Workshop on Dietary Assessment: Nutrition Monitoring and Tracking the Year 2000 Objectives. Hyattesville, MD: DHHS, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Health Statistics, 1994.
  2. Block Dietary Data Systems:Block 95 Food Frequency Questionnaire. Berkley, CA: Block Dietary Data Systems, 1995.
  3. Reiss AJ:Occupations and social status / Albert J. Reiss, Jr., with Otis Dudley Duncan, Paul K. Hatt, Cecil C. North. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.
  4. SPSS, Inc.: SPSS (Version 10.0) [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS, Inc., 1999.
  5. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D: LISREL (Version 8.30) [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc., 1999.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–138 of 138

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, E. S., Winett, R. A., Wojcik, J. R., Winett, S. G., & Bowden, T.
Affiliations
Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Eileen S.
ORCID
Wojcik, Janet R.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2001-05
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
88-100
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
DOI
10.1207/s15324796abm2302_3
OpenAlex
W1975877546
Cited by
138
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ca045926-07)
  • National Cancer Institute (2RO1CA45926-06A1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
social cognitive theory, nutrition behavior, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, dietary fat intake, dietary fiber, fruit and vegetable intake, self-regulation, personalized health information, indirect effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Dietary Fats, Dietary Fiber, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Feeding Behavior, Female, Fruit, Goals, Health Education, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Socioeconomic Factors, Vegetables, Logistic Models, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review