Cited by 22Cancer survivorship and careBehavioral Health and InterventionsNutritional Studies and Diet

Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Theories Implementation in Dietary Interventions for People Who Have Survived Cancer

Open access
Sremanakova, Jana, Sowerbutts, Anne Marie, Todd, Chris, Cooke, Richard, Burden, Sorrel·2021·Nutrients

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of dietary interventions for cancer survivors have been based on the behaviour change theory framework. The purpose of this study is to review the use and implementation of behaviour change theories in dietary interventions for people after cancer and assess their effects on the reported outcomes. Methods: The search strategy from a Cochrane review on dietary interventions for cancer survivors was expanded to incorporate an additional criterion on the use of behaviour change theory and updated to September 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) testing a dietary intervention compared to the control were included. Standard Cochrane methodological procedures were used. Results: Nineteen RCTs, with 6261 participants (age range 44.6 to 73.1 years), were included in the review. The Social Cognitive Theory was the most frequently used theory (15 studies, 79%). Studies included between 4 to 17 behaviour change techniques. Due to limited information on the mediators of intervention and large heterogeneity between studies, no meta-analyses was conducted to assess which theoretical components of the interventions are effective. Conclusions: Whilst researchers have incorporated behaviour change theories into dietary interventions for cancer survivors, due to inconsistencies in design, evaluation and reporting, the effect of theories on survivors’ outcomes remains unclear.

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 · 10.3390/nu13020612

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • It is difficult to determine what components or active ingredients within lifestyle interventions offer merit for behavior outcomes.

    “Lifestyle interventions can be rooted in a variety of frameworks and methods [14, 15], making it difficult to determine what components or ‘active ingredients’ [14–16] within interventions offer merit for behavior outcomes [17–19].”

    From Barriers and facilitators to diet, physical activity and lifestyle behavior intervention adherence: a qualitative systematic review of the literature (2023) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Results (§3.5) say the reviewed studies could not determine which theoretical aspects were positively related to behaviour change and outcomes. The Discussion (§4.4) likewise says it remains unclear which constructs influence behaviour, but this finding concerns dietary interventions for cancer survivors, not lifestyle interventions generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [46]RevMan R version 5.4.1 The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Oxford, UK 2014

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sremanakova, J., Sowerbutts, A. M., Todd, C., Cooke, R., & Burden, S.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Sremanakova, Jana
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-02-13
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
612
ISSN
2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3132964892
Cited by
21
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrients (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Research Impact Scholarship Award provided by the Division of Development and Alumni Relations of the University of Manchester (10203431)
  • Health Research (NIHR) as part of Professor Todd’s Senior Investigator award (NIHR200299)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
behaviour change theory, dietary intervention, cancer survivors, social cognitive theory, behaviour change techniques, intervention design, intervention evaluation, intervention reporting
MeSH terms
Diet, Healthy, Cancer Survivors, Transtheoretical Model, Adult, Aged, Behavior Therapy, Diet Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Psychological Theory, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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