» Articles » PMID: 20181070

Psychosocial Determinants of Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Adult Population: a Systematic Review

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2010 Feb 26
PMID 20181070
Citations 88
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Healthy dietary practices and its' associated factors among adults of Nekemte dwellers, Oromia State, Western Ethiopia.

Adeba A, Tamiru D, Belachew T Front Nutr. 2024; 10:1259024.

PMID: 38328684 PMC: 10847308. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1259024.


A meta-theoretical framework for organizing and integrating theory and research on motivation for health-related behavior.

Williams D Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1130813.

PMID: 36910809 PMC: 9995609. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1130813.


The association of self-efficacy and coping strategies with body mass index is mediated by eating behaviors and dietary intake among young females: A structural-equation modeling approach.

Aynehchi A, Saleh-Ghadimi S, Dehghan P PLoS One. 2023; 18(1):e0279364.

PMID: 36706081 PMC: 9882783. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279364.


Impact and evaluation of an online culinary nutrition course for health, education and industry professionals to promote vegetable knowledge and consumption.

Asher R, Clarke E, Bucher T, Shrewsbury V, Roberts S, Collins C J Hum Nutr Diet. 2022; 36(3):967-980.

PMID: 36321462 PMC: 10947242. DOI: 10.1111/jhn.13109.


You Are What You Eat… But Do You Eat What You Are? The Role of Identity in Eating Behaviors-A Scoping Review.

Gerber S, Folta S Nutrients. 2022; 14(17).

PMID: 36079713 PMC: 9458161. DOI: 10.3390/nu14173456.


References
1.
Anderson E, Winett R, Wojcik J . Self-regulation, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and social support: social cognitive theory and nutrition behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2007; 34(3):304-12. DOI: 10.1007/BF02874555. View

2.
Weinstein N, Rothman A . Commentary: Revitalizing research on health behavior theories. Health Educ Res. 2005; 20(3):294-7. DOI: 10.1093/her/cyg125. View

3.
Kromhout D, Bloemberg B, Seidell J, Nissinen A, Menotti A . Physical activity and dietary fiber determine population body fat levels: the Seven Countries Study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001; 25(3):301-6. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801568. View

4.
Bogers R, Brug J, van Assema P, Dagnelie P . Explaining fruit and vegetable consumption: the theory of planned behaviour and misconception of personal intake levels. Appetite. 2004; 42(2):157-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2003.08.015. View

5.
Hagler A, Norman G, Zabinski M, Sallis J, Calfas K, Patrick K . Psychosocial correlates of dietary intake among overweight and obese men. Am J Health Behav. 2006; 31(1):3-12. DOI: 10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.1.3. View