Effects of health literacy, screening, and participant choice on action plans for reducing unhealthy snacking in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101231360 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1549-1676 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 15491277 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS Med Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science, [2004]-
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      Background: Low health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes. A key strategy to address health literacy is a universal precautions approach, which recommends using health-literate design for all health interventions, not just those targeting people with low health literacy. This approach has advantages: Health literacy assessment and tailoring are not required. However, action plans may be more effective when tailored by health literacy. This study evaluated the impact of health literacy and action plan type on unhealthy snacking for people who have high BMI or type 2 diabetes (Aim 1) and the most effective method of action plan allocation (Aim 2).
      Methods and Findings: We performed a 2-stage randomised controlled trial in Australia between 14 February and 6 June 2019. In total, 1,769 participants (mean age: 49.8 years [SD = 11.7]; 56.1% female [n = 992]; mean BMI: 32.9 kg/m2 [SD = 8.7]; 29.6% self-reported type 2 diabetes [n = 523]) were randomised to 1 of 3 allocation methods (random, health literacy screening, or participant selection) and 1 of 2 action plans to reduce unhealthy snacking (standard versus literacy-sensitive). Regression analysis evaluated the impact of health literacy (Newest Vital Sign [NVS]), allocation method, and action plan on reduction in self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks (primary outcome) at 4-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were perceived extent of unhealthy snacking, difficulty using the plans, habit strength, and action control. Analyses controlled for age, level of education, language spoken at home, diabetes status, baseline habit strength, and baseline self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks. Average NVS score was 3.6 out of 6 (SD = 2.0). Participants reported consuming 25.0 serves of snacks on average per week at baseline (SD = 28.0). Regarding Aim 1, 398 participants in the random allocation arm completed follow-up (67.7%). On average, people scoring 1 SD below the mean for health literacy consumed 10.0 fewer serves per week using the literacy-sensitive action plan compared to the standard action plan (95% CI: 0.05 to 19.5; p = 0.039), whereas those scoring 1 SD above the mean consumed 3.0 fewer serves using the standard action plan compared to the literacy-sensitive action plan (95% CI: -6.3 to 12.2; p = 0.529), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. In addition, we observed a non-significant action plan × health literacy (NVS) interaction (b = -3.25; 95% CI: -6.55 to 0.05; p = 0.054). Regarding Aim 2, 1,177 participants across the 3 allocation method arms completed follow-up (66.5%). There was no effect of allocation method on reduction of unhealthy snacking, including no effect of health literacy screening compared to participant selection (b = 1.79; 95% CI: -0.16 to 3.73; p = 0.067). Key limitations include low-moderate retention, use of a single-occasion self-reported primary outcome, and reporting of a number of extreme, yet plausible, snacking scores, which rendered interpretation more challenging. Adverse events were not assessed.
      Conclusions: In our study we observed nominal improvements in effectiveness of action plans tailored to health literacy; however, these improvements did not reach statistical significance, and the costs associated with such strategies compared with universal precautions need further investigation. This study highlights the importance of considering differential effects of health literacy on intervention effectiveness.
      Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12618001409268.
      Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
    • References:
      J Health Commun. 2013;18(12):1507-22. (PMID: 24298885)
      Nutrients. 2017 Jan 09;9(1):. (PMID: 28075355)
      Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 May;95(5):1182-9. (PMID: 22456660)
      BMJ. 2008 Oct 31;337:a1864. (PMID: 18977792)
      J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 May;101(5):562-6. (PMID: 11374350)
      Diabetes Educ. 2014 Sep-Oct;40(5):581-604. (PMID: 24947871)
      Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2014 Apr;42(2):62-9. (PMID: 24508739)
      Health Psychol. 2010 May;29(3):284-292. (PMID: 20496982)
      Nutrients. 2018 Feb 11;10(2):. (PMID: 29439463)
      J Med Internet Res. 2019 Oct 30;21(10):e14074. (PMID: 31670693)
      J Health Commun. 2016;21(sup2):109-120. (PMID: 27668318)
      Science. 2015 Aug 28;349(6251):aac4716. (PMID: 26315443)
      J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Aug;21(8):874-7. (PMID: 16881950)
      BMJ Open. 2019 May 28;9(5):e028544. (PMID: 31142536)
      Curr Diab Rep. 2017 Oct 23;17(12):126. (PMID: 29063419)
      PLoS One. 2019 Jan 17;14(1):e0209863. (PMID: 30653531)
      Lancet. 2018 Feb 10;391(10120):541-551. (PMID: 29221645)
      Health Psychol Rev. 2016 Sep;10(3):277-96. (PMID: 26854092)
      BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec 29;18(1):1414. (PMID: 30594180)
      Chronic Illn. 2017 Sep;13(3):217-235. (PMID: 27884930)
      Med Decis Making. 2011 Mar-Apr;31(2):229-36. (PMID: 21041538)
      Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2011 Mar;(199):1-941. (PMID: 23126607)
      Psychol Bull. 2008 Mar;134(2):270-300. (PMID: 18298272)
      Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2013 Jul;14(3):293-306. (PMID: 23739524)
      Adv Nutr. 2016 Sep 15;7(5):866-78. (PMID: 27633103)
      Ann Fam Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;3(6):514-22. (PMID: 16338915)
      Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2014 Mar;6(1):1-47. (PMID: 24591064)
      J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Apr;33(4):510-523. (PMID: 29427178)
      Psychol Health. 2014;29(12):1476-92. (PMID: 25099386)
      J Health Commun. 2018;23(2):170-180. (PMID: 29345531)
      Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;80(2):257-63. (PMID: 15277143)
      J Health Commun. 2011;16 Suppl 3:30-54. (PMID: 21951242)
      Health Psychol. 2009 Nov;28(6):690-701. (PMID: 19916637)
      Prev Med. 2017 Nov;104:120-123. (PMID: 28757449)
      Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016 Aug;13(4):324-33. (PMID: 27104337)
    • Molecular Sequence:
      ANZCTR ACTRN12618001409268
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20201103 Date Completed: 20210125 Latest Revision: 20210125
    • Publication Date:
      20240105
    • Accession Number:
      PMC7608866
    • Accession Number:
      10.1371/journal.pmed.1003409
    • Accession Number:
      33141834