1. Introduction
Both adequate nutrition and worldwide environmental sustainability are strongly sustained by global food systems. In the last decades, imposed by diverse anthropogenic sources, such as growing population and uncertainty of global economy, food systems have been facing major alterations that have deeply impacted food consumption behaviours [1,2,3]. Intricately linking human health and sustainability, food consumption patterns represent one of the greatest challenges of this century. Trending unhealthy meal patterns, often driven by needs of convenience and inadequate accessibility to nutritious foods, are characterised as high in caloric value, excessively processed, and rich in animal source foods [3,4]. Leading to over 2 billion adults with overweight or obesity and a global prevalence of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, unhealthy diets pose a greater risk to morbidity and mortality than those of unprotected sex, alcohol, tobacco, and drug use combined [3,5]. Moreover, with the global public health pandemic of COVID-19, food consumption behaviours are demonstrating an increased pattern of unhealthier diets during home confinements and other related restrictions across diverse countries [6].
Additional to increasing the burden of food-related diseases, these unhealthy dietary trends also play a crucial role in environmental degradation [7,8]. Food regimes identified as lose–lose diets—characterised by being both unhealthy and environmentally unsustainable—are not only described as high in saturated fats, added sugars, and red meats, but also represent a higher environmental burden, being associated with the transformation of natural ecosystems into croplands and threatening biodiversity with species’ extinction [9]. With 40% of global land occupied by agriculture, and food production being accountable for up to 70% of freshwater use and 30% of worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions, a change in the global food system is needed to minimise its impact on both human health and environmental sustainability [3,10,11,12].
A shift towards improved nutrition and more sustainable food systems has been a concern to the international community, represented by global agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals integrated within the 2030 Agenda [13], its Food Systems Summit [14], and the Decade of Action on Nutrition [15]. However, this shift will not thrive without a simultaneous bottom-up transformation; it is crucial that people change how they view, understand, and engage with food systems, ultimately changing their food-related knowledge, competencies, and behaviours—that is, their food literacy [3,4,16,17].
1.1. Food Literacy
Designated as crucial to protect the quality of diets across the lifespan, food literacy has been gaining prominence across research, practice, and policy during the last decade [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Generally seeking to improve nutrition knowledge and food-related skills, most programmes and interventions developed within the scope of food literacy either (i) exclusively feature nutrition information [24,25,26], (ii) are targeted towards younger populations and often developed in an educational context [27,28,29,30,31], and/or (iii) narrowly focus on preparation or cooking skills, not emphasising other food-related competencies (e.g., planning, acquisition) [21,25,28,32]. More importantly, current interventions do not provide for knowledge to face the complexity of today’s food environment, nor the competencies to deal with it and navigate within aiming for healthier food patterns; consequently, food-related behaviour change is limited [32].
Acknowledging the intertwined relation among food system stakeholders and individuals’ food literacy, and its relevance in order to tackle major challenges concerning global sustainability, this team developed the Food Literacy Wheel (FLW) [16] and the FOODLIT-Tool [17]. The first is a conceptual and empirical framework of food literacy, comprehending not only the set of food-related knowledge, competencies, and behaviours but also its determinants (such as convenience and practicality, time and financial management, access to food information, and professionals’ unpreparedness on food-related expertise) and influential factors (psychological and learning surroundings, policy and industry settings, sustainability and social contexts, among others). The second concerns a validated and reliable instrument to assess the food literacy of adults based on the FLW; this quantitative measure allows for its own tailoring to diverse contexts and intends to evaluate one’s food literacy, its determinants, and influential factors, as a resource to promote behaviour change towards more healthier and sustainable food habits.
Aiming to make a contribution for the development of food-related competencies, attainment of healthier eating habits and achievement of more sustainable practices within one’s diet, the FOODLIT-Trial will integrate both the FLW and the FOODLIT-Tool on a digital intervention to promote food literacy and sustainability behaviours in adults.
1.2. Digital Interventions to Promote Behaviour Change
The use of technology within the daily life of developed countries’ population has gained particular relevance in recent years, being even more emphasised by the current COVID-19 global pandemic. With almost 90% of European households having online access and more than 70% adults affirming the use of online resources on an everyday basis, studies conducting digital interventions aiming for behaviour change have become widespread [33,34,35]. Particularly in the scope of health promotion, food consumption has been one of the most mainstream topics for the use of digital technologies; accounting for daily activities, the potential for food-related behaviours (such as purchasing, cooking, or eating) to be changed through digital solutions, such as web-based self-guided programmes and smartphone applications, is significantly appealing [35,36]. However, with the increase in digital interventions for the promotion of food-related healthier and sustainable behaviours, various trends have emerged. Within the theme of food sustainability, targeted behaviours have mainly focused on the reduction of food waste [37,38,39,40]; food-related competencies, purchasing, and cooking have been the most recurrent aimed behaviours [41,42,43]. The predominance of programmes targeted at younger populations [44,45] or specific to clinical conditions [46,47] is also notorious. Particularly concerning food literacy, the use of digital tools to promote food-related knowledge, competencies, and behaviours is still taking its first steps; either featuring technology or not, the prevalence of a younger target across food literacy interventions and programmes is evident [22,31,32,48]. More recently, however, the adult population has been targeted in research-based interventions [49,50,51,52], and digital resources remain scarce in the field.
Another noticeable characteristic of digital interventions to promote for healthy, sustainable, and knowledgeable food-related behaviours is the lack of clear theoretical backdrop to sustain behavioural change. The majority of these studies are scarcely grounded on a behavioural change theory [37,38]; most report an increase in participants’ awareness but do not explore longitudinal and evidence-based behaviour change [35]. Limitations of previous studies include lack of baseline data, lack of control or comparisons group, and lack of longitudinal follow-up data [35,43,49].
Addressing the promotion of healthier and more sustainable food-related knowledge, competencies, and behaviours through a digital and online intervention, the FOODLIT-Trial is grounded in the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) [53,54] and applies behaviour change techniques from a consensual taxonomy (Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy (BCTT)) [55], aiming to lead to effective and sustained food behaviour change.
1.3. Study Objectives and Hypothesis
This study presents the detailed research protocol of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the efficacy of a web-based intervention in enhancing adults’ food literacy, using (i) digital evidence-based resources, (ii) behavioural change techniques from the BCTT [55], and (iii) the HAPA framework [53,54] as a theoretical backdrop.
The study’s primary objective is to evaluate whether the developed digital intervention is effective in improving food-related knowledge, competencies, and behaviours, based on the FLW [16] and evaluated with the FOODLIT-Tool [17]. Potential differences in participant’s food literacy over time will also be assessed with a longitudinal design. We hypothesise that the use of a web-based intervention combined with behavioural change strategies (customised to each food-related skill) will be more effective to enhance food literacy than the approach used with the comparison group (single-time delivery of non-customised food-related national and international guidelines, without any additional theoretically informed, evidence-based behaviour change approaches). The second objective is to understand the intervention performance, by evaluating which psychological mechanisms, such as self-efficacy, planning, and action control [53,54], efficaciously determine change in participants’ food literacy. It is hypothesised that HAPA-derived mechanisms will significantly mediate the participants’ outcomes concerning food literacy.
2. Methods and Analysis
2.1. Trial Design
The FOODLIT-Trial is a two-arm (allocation ratio 1:1), parallel, experimental, and single-blinded randomised controlled trial for Portuguese adults (Figure 1). The web-based intervention is delivered over 11 weeks, where each week is themed with content either according to the FLW framework or to the HAPA model.
In conformity to the week’s thematic, each ability, skill, and behaviour is matched with a behavioural change strategy to facilitate its implementation [55]. All measures will be assessed at five time points: baseline (T0), to measure baseline characteristics, pre-intervention, before randomised allocation, and prior to the trial’s first week; post-intervention (T1); one week after the 11-week intervention delivery; and at follow-up times 3, 6, and 9 months after the intervention (T2, T3, and T4, respectively).
This protocol adheres to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [56] guidelines for randomised controlled trials.
2.2. Ethical Approval
As part of a major project titled FOODLIT-PRO: Food Literacy Project, this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ispa—Instituto Universitário (ref. D/002/03/2018). The FOODLIT-Trial was developed according to the Declaration of Helsinki, followed the deontological norms and ethical principles of the Order of Portuguese Psychologists [57], and adhered to General Data Protection Regulation [58]. This protocol was approved and registered by ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04806074).
2.3. Participants and Recruitment
Considering its web-based format, FOODLIT-Trial’s potential participants will represent a sample of convenience and snowballing, and will be reached and enlisted through online sources. Online reach out will be made by using both advertisements in social media websites according to the researcher’s network (Instagram and Facebook, Meta Platforms: Cambridge, MA, USA) and a developed website for participants’ enrolment. During the recruitment stage, potential participants will be informed that trial participation will entail compensation in order to acknowledge their time and effort dedicated to the study.
An a priori power analysis was conducted with G*Power (v. 3.1), and a minimum sample size of 28 was necessary in order to detect a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.50) at the 5% level of significance with 95% power, with the assumption of the non-violation of sphericity (non-sphericity correction ε = 1) considering the trial’s repeated-measures design. Given a potential attrition rate of 50% due to the digital nature of the trial, its duration, and required weekly assessments, a minimum of 56 participants will be recruited.
Participants for the FOODLIT-Trial must (i) be adults aged 18 years or older, (ii) be able to understand and read Portuguese, (iii) have availability to engage in the 11-week trial, and have internet access that allows for their engagement, (iv) be responsible for, at least, one out of four tasks in their food routine (encompassing choice and decision, selection and acquisition, preparation, and cooking, according to [18]). Potentially eligible participants will be invited to the trial through an online information sheet, and will be provided with the consent form; if eligible, the baseline questionnaire (T0) will be made available and delivered online. Additionally, all participants will be asked to complete a sociodemographic questionnaire aiming to collect self-reported data concerning sociodemographic and health-related characteristics (e.g., sex, age, educational level, diagnosed diseases, height, weight).
2.4. Randomisation and Blinding
Consenting participants meeting inclusion criteria will be randomised and allocated to either the experimental group (EG) or the comparison group (CG), following the baseline period. At baseline, each participant will create a unique code (based on the name’s initials and year of birth) to allow for longitudinal correspondence along the different time points. Randomisation will then be performed using a computer-generated random 1:1 allocation list. Knowledgeable concerning the specifications of the trial arms in the consent form, all participants will also be informed that both groups will (i) be contacted weekly to take part in every assessment, (ii) receive the same online reminders through digital sources (email and WhatsApp, Meta Platforms: Mountain View, California), and (iii) be featured in the compensation mechanism. As such, randomisation results will be concealed from participants at all moments. It will not be possible to apply this to the research coordinator (RR), given her responsibility to create and deliver the weekly customised resources to the EG. Thus, the FOODLIT-Trial’s allocation will be single-blinded for its participants.
2.5. Intervention
The FOODLIT-Trial is an online-enabled intervention to promote food literacy and food sustainability practices delivered with digital evidence-based resources in multiple formats, based on theoretically informed behaviour change approaches, and made available through mobile phone, tablet, and computer. The intervention will include weekly reminders for participants to evaluate their food-related knowledge, competencies, and behaviours, and assess related psychological mechanisms associated with behaviour change. Experimental and comparison group specifications are described below.
2.5.1. Experimental Group
Participants allocated to the EG will receive weekly information concerning a specific theme through digital sources such as videos, infographics, and web-directed links. The 11-week intervention is designed according to (a) the food-related knowledge, competencies, and behaviours belonging to the core of the FLW conceptual and empirical model, and (b) the psychological mechanisms within the HAPA framework. As shown in Table 1, each week entails not only a set of skills, behaviours, and/or mechanisms that feature the above mentioned theoretical and empirical frames, but also a customised, well-defined, and identifiable technique from BCCT to prompt participants’ food-related behaviour change.
Participants in the EG will receive weekly (A) evidence-based and customised information related to a specific skill, behaviour, and/or mechanism, from sources such as national and international guidelines—namely, the Portuguese Directorate-General for Health and the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health; (B) designated tasks based on each behaviour change technique and related to the week’s thematic; (C) a short introductory video, featuring the research coordinator, briefly mentioning the week’s thematic and alerting to the week’s assessment; (D) notifications reminding the need to respond to the week’s questionnaire (two days before the end of the week and the day of the due date for questionnaire response) and the corresponding link leading to the week’s questionnaire. All materials, except for the weekly questionnaires, will be stored in a purposely created website, allowing for participants to revisit previous weeks’ resources (if desired).
Shown in Table 2A is two-week example of (A) a customised infographic, (B) its associated task based on a behaviour change strategy, and (C) its corresponding items.
2.5.2. Comparison Group
Participants allocated to the active CG will receive a single-time and non-customised delivery of the same food-related national and international guidelines. There will be no theoretically informed approach and no behaviour change techniques, and the delivered content will generically regard nutritious eating and food-related habits. No digital presence of the research coordinator will be featured to the CG (that is, no weekly introductory videos will be sent to this cohort). Additionally, to the (A) single-time (but non-customised) delivery of informative guidelines from the same entities, the CG will receive (D) the identical notifications serving as reminders for the weekly questionnaires (identical to the questionnaires delivered to the EG). Similarly to the EG, the guidelines will be stored in a specifically designed website, providing for uninterrupted access.
2.6. Adherence and Strategies to Minimise Drop-Out
To encourage intervention adherence and engagement, weekly reminders will be sent to participants of both EG and CG via email and/or WhatsApp. At the beginning of each week, the reminder will be sent via WhatsApp, notifying participants that a new week of FOOLIT-Trial is starting and that the weekly welcoming email was sent; for the EG, a link enabling the access to the week’s resources (A, B, and C) will be featured, while CG participants will be reminded of the access to where guidelines are stored (non-customised A). Two days before the end of each week, an email will be sent in the morning with the link leading to the week’s questionnaire; a notification through WhatsApp will be delivered later that day reminding that the link for questionnaire response is already available. At the due date for the weekly response, a final reminder will be sent through WhatsApp, indicating that the questionnaire will be available until the end of that day.
Additionally, as a strategy to minimise drop-out and to prompt continuous engagement, compensation will be featured within the FOODLIT-Trial. Compensation will entail the following randomised allocations of gift cards to participants for grocery shopping: (i) one gift card at the end of the 11-week intervention (with a credit of 50 EUR), (ii) a gift card at the end of the first and second follow-up (T2 and T3; a total of two gift cards with a credit of 25 EUR each), and (iii) two gift cards at the end of the last follow-up (T4; each gift card with a credit of 50 EUR).
2.7. Outcomes
2.7.1. Primary Outcome Measure
Considering FOODLIT-Trial’s first aim, the primary outcome to be assessed is food literacy. Food-related knowledge, competencies, and behaviours will be assessed with the FOODLIT-Tool [17] at baseline (T0), during the 11-week intervention (with the items distributed across the theme for the week; Table 1), post-intervention (T1), and at all follow-ups (T2, T3, and T4). These longitudinal assessments will evaluate participants’ food literacy according to the five dimensions portrayed in the instrument (Culinary Competencies, Production and Quality, Selection and Planning, Environmentally Safe, and Origin) and based on the FLW [16]. These include (i) theoretical knowledge, such as knowing various types of food preservation suitable to different foods (item 10); (ii) practical competencies, as interpreting food labels to select adequate foods (item 19); and (iii) food habits and behaviours, such as eating foods according to their seasonality (item 22). All items are assessed with a four-point Likert-type response scale, concerning either frequency (0—never; 1—sometimes; 2—frequently; 3—always) or agreement (0—completely disagree; 1—disagree; 2—agree; 3—completely agree).
2.7.2. Secondary Outcome Measure
Aiming to explore intervention performance, FOODLIT-Trial’s second aim is to evaluate which psychological mechanisms efficaciously predict change in participants’ food literacy. To achieve this objective, psychological mechanisms derived from the HAPA—including risk perception, outcome expectancies, self-efficacy, planning, and action control—will also be assessed at similar time points (from T0 to T4). All measures to evaluate HAPA constructs are adapted from Sniehotta, Scholz, and Schwarzer [59] and are specific to food literacy, depicting eating according to one’s needs as the intended behaviour. All items are also assessed with four-point Likert-type response scales, regarding agreement (0—totally disagree; 1—disagree; 2—agree; 3—totally agree) and possibility (0—very unlikely; 1—unlikely; 2—likely; 3—very likely).
3. Statistical Analyses
3.1. Randomisation Check, Drop-Out Analyses, and Intention to Treat
A randomisation check will address equal distributions of all baseline measures of all primary and secondary outcomes and covariates across conditions using multivariate analyses of variance interval–scale data, and chi-square tests for nominal and ordinal-scale data. Analyses will be carried out in an intention-to-treat manner, accounting for missing values using the full information maximum likelihood approach [60]. Drop-out analyses will test baseline differences between continuers and non-continuers in all variables using t-tests, chi-square tests, or logistic regression.
3.2. Hypotheses Tests for Intervention Effects
Linear two-level models with five time points (T0, T1, T2, T3, T4; within-level) nested in participants (between-level) will be computed. For each outcome measure, time (linear day trend, centred at 0) x experimental condition (0 = comparison condition; 1 = intervention condition) interactions will be estimated. Moreover, grand-mean centred covariates (e.g., sex, age) will be added as between-level predictors. The linear time trend and the linear time trend x experimental condition interaction will be modelled as fixed effects.
3.3. Examining Intervention Mechanisms
To explore the assumptions of the HAPA, a series of longitudinal mediation analyses will be conducted using manifest or latent path analyses. Experimental condition will be specified as a dummy-coded independent variable, proposed cognitive mechanisms as mediators, and food literacy factors as the outcomes (with or without control for respective baseline assessments). Because of the flexible conceptual framework of HAPA, reasonable time points (T1–T4) will be explored to identify the most useful mediators (e.g., self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, behavioural intention, planning) within the entire time span of the study. Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (95%) of direct and indirect effects will be generated by bootstrapping with 5000 re-samples.
4. Dissemination Plan
The study protocol is the first publication of this RCT. Findings of this RCT will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and at national and international conferences. Dissemination of results in journals will comply with CONSORT guidelines. Important protocol modifications will be reported.
5. Conclusions
By introducing the research protocol of a RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of a digital intervention to promote adults’ food literacy, this study highlights not only the use of web-based resources to tackle food-related competencies and behaviours, but also addresses the need to design and apply a trial based on strong theoretical foundations linked to health behaviour change. We hypothesise that the support allowed by the delivery of digital materials entailing behavioural change strategies customised to food literacy-related information will improve food knowledge, competencies, and behaviours. A secondary hypothesis is that mechanisms acknowledged as part of a theoretical background to promote behaviour change will mediate these food literacy outcomes. To achieve the hypothesised outcomes, this team developed an 11-week plan that (A) gathers evidence-based resources based on national and international guidelines, (B) designates specific and diversified tasks based on behaviour change techniques, (C) provides for a multiple thematics, and (D) shares online notifications.
Presenting the first known randomised digital intervention to integrate behavioural strategies, based on a validated taxonomy and a theoretical framework of behaviour change in the field of food literacy, the FOODLIT-Trial intends to contribute to the promotion of healthier and more sustainable food habits during a global public health pandemic. With growing evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumers’ food patterns and worldwide food security [2,61,62], it is urgent to provide for mechanisms that promote positive change on food-related competencies and behaviours, while providing for strategies that guide one’s navigation within this transformative food system. Accounting for a specific web-based platform for the delivery of digital resources and integrating online communication throughout the intervention, the FOODLIT-Trial transforms extensive international recommendations into thematic weekly challenges with the expectation to advocate for more informed food knowledge and more adequate and sustainable eating habits in adult population. If effective, this intervention—along with its assessments of the FOODLIT-Tool and its conceptual basis from the FLW—has the potential to be adapted and applied across multiple professional contexts, allowing for a digital cost-effective resource that promotes healthier and more sustainable food habits according to international guidelines.
Conceptualisation, R.R. and F.P.; methodology design, R.R., F.P., and R.S.; validation, F.P., R.S., and I.L.; investigation, R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, R.R.; writing—review and editing, F.P., R.S., and I.L.; supervision, R.S. and I.L.; funding acquisition, R.R., F.P., I.L., and R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology through a grant attributed to R.R. (Grant No. SFRH/BD/128528/2017). The WJCR–William James Center for Research is also funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Grant No. UID/PSI/04810/2019).
This study was developed according to the Declaration of Helsinki, approved by the Ethics Committee of Ispa—Instituto Universitário (ref. D/002/03/2018), followed the deontological norms and ethical principles of the Order of Portuguese Psychologists, and adhered to General Data Protection Regulation. This protocol was approved and registered by ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04806074).
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Flowchart of the FOODLIT-Trial intervention, including both experimental and comparison groups.
Description of the experimental group intervention, including (i) the weekly thematic; (ii) its correspondent frameworks, including the Food Literacy Wheel (FLW) and the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA); (iii) the instruments used for weekly assessment, entailing either items from the FOODLIT-Tool or the HAPA; and (iv) the identification of the each behaviour change technique (BCT) used across all weeks, customised to the thematic’s content.
| Week | Framework | Instruments | Behaviour Change Techniques |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thematic | Variables or dimensions | Dimensions and/or items | BCTs title |
| Week 1 | HAPA | HAPA | Total: 3 BCTs |
| Pre-intenders | Action self-efficacy | Five items | (15.1) Verbal persuasion about capability |
| Risk perception | Three items | (5.1) Information about health consequences | |
| Outcome expectancies | Nine items | (9.3) Comparative imagining of future outcomes | |
| Week 2 | FLW | FOODLIT-Tool | Total: 2 BCTs |
| Origin and conservation | Choice and acquisition | Origin |
(4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour |
| Preserve and analyse | Culinary competencies |
(4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour |
|
| Week 3 | FLW | FOODLIT-Tool | Total: 4 BCTs |
| Prepare and adapt | Cooking Skills | Culinary competencies |
(1.4) Action planning |
| Item 2 | (4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour | ||
| Item 3 | (15.1) Verbal persuasion about capability | ||
| Week 4 | FLW | FOODLIT-Tool | Total: 3 BCTs |
| Cooking | Cooking Skills | Culinary competencies |
(6.1) Demonstration of the behaviour |
| Item 8 | (1.1) Goal setting (behaviour) |
||
| Week 5 | FLW | FOODLIT-Tool | Total: 1 BCT |
| Choice and selection | Choice and acquisition | Selection and planning |
(4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour (in both items) |
| Item 21 | |||
| Week 6 | HAPA | HAPA | Total: 3 BCTs |
| Intenders | Maintenance self-efficacy | Six items | (15.3) Focus on past success |
| Action planning | Five items | (1.4) Action planning | |
| Coping planning | Six items | (1.2) Problem solving | |
| Week 7 | FLW | FOODLIT-Tool | Total: 3 BCTs |
| Nutrition and intake | Cooking Skills | Culinary competencies |
(6.1) Demonstration of the behaviour |
| Preserve and analyse | Selection and planning |
(2.4) Self-monitoring of outcome(s) of behaviour | |
| Choice and acquisition | Item 19 | (6.1) Demonstration of the behaviour | |
| Search and plan | Item 24 | (4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour | |
| Week 8 | FLW | FOODLIT-Tool | Total: 4 BCTs |
| Planning and cooking pleasure | Cooking skills | Culinary competencies |
(5.6) Information about emotional consequences |
| Search and plan | Selection and planning |
(4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour (in both items) | |
| Item 26 | (6.1) Demonstration of the behaviour (in both items) | ||
| Week 9 | FLW | FOODLIT-Tool | Total: 2 BCTs |
| Hygiene and safety (within production and kitchen) | Preserve and analyse | Environmentally safe |
(4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour |
| Production and quality |
(4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour (in all items) |
||
| Item 13 | |||
| Item 14 | |||
| Week 10 | FLW | FOODLIT-Tool | Total: 2 BCTs |
| Local and seasonal | Preserve and analyse | Environmentally safe |
(5.3) Information about social and environmental consequences |
| Search and plan | Item 22 | (4.1) Instruction on how to perform the behaviour (in both items) | |
| Item 23 | |||
| Week 11 | HAPA | HAPA | Total: 3 BCTs |
| Actors | Recovery self-efficacy | Three items | (8.7) Graded tasks |
| Action control | Six items | (1.6) Discrepancy between current behaviour and goal |
Example of the FOODLIT-Trial’s experimental group Week 4 (themed Cooking) and Week 11 (themed Actors), entailing (A) customised infographics; (B) its associated tasks, presented within the infographics and reflecting the behaviour change strategies applied; and (C) corresponding items, to be responded to before the end of the week.
| Week 4—Cooking |
|---|
| Customised infographics (A) and its associated tasks (B), reflecting the behaviour change and strategies applied. |
| [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
| Corresponding items (C), to be responded to before the end of the week. |
| Week 11—Actors |
| Customised infographics (A) and its associated tasks (B), reflecting the behaviour change strategies applied. |
| [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
| [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] |
| Corresponding items (D), to be responded to before the end of the week. |
References
1. FAOIFADUNICEFWFPWHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. Safeguarding against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
2. O’Hara, S.; Toussaint, E.C. Food access in crisis: Food security and COVID-19. Ecol. Econ.; 2021; 180, 106859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106859]
3. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A. et al. Food in the anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet; 2019; 393, pp. 447-492. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4]
4. Rosas, R.; Pimenta, F.; Leal, I.; Schwarzer, R. FOODLIT-PRO: Food Literacy Domains, Influential Factors and Determinants—A Qualitative Study. Nutrients; 2019; 12, 88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu12010088]
5. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. Food Systems and Diets: Facing the Challenges of the 21st Century; Global Panel: London, UK, 2016.
6. Ammar, A.; Brach, M.; Trabelsi, K.; Chtourou, H.; Boukhris, O.; Masmoudi, L.; Bouaziz, B.; Bentlage, E.; How, D.; Ahmed, M. et al. On Behalf of the ECLB-COVID19 Consortium. Effects of COVID-19 Home Confinement on Eating Behaviour and Physical Activity: Results of the ECLB-COVID19 International Online Survey. Nutrients; 2020; 12, 1583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu12061583]
7. Springmann, M.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Rayner, M.; Scarborough, P. Analysis and Valuation of the Health and Climate Change Cobenefits of Dietary Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2016; 113, pp. 4146-4151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113]
8. Tilman, D.; Clark, M. Global Diets Link Environmental Sustainability and Human Health. Nature; 2014; 515, pp. 518-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13959]
9. Tilman, D.; Clark, M.; Williams, D.R.; Kimmel, K.; Polasky, S.; Packer, C. Future Threats to Biodiversity and Pathways to Their Prevention. Nature; 2017; 546, pp. 73-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature22900]
10. Foley, J.A.; DeFries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K. et al. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science; 2005; 309, pp. 570-574. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772]
11. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A. et al. Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science; 2015; 347, 1259855. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855]
12. Vermeulen, S.J.; Campbell, B.M.; Ingram, J.S.I. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.; 2012; 37, pp. 195-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608]
13. UN. General assembly A/RES/70/1. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
14. UN. Member States Food Systems Summit Dialogue. Description of the Inception Period; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
15. UN. Decade of Action in Nutrition. Available online: https://www.un.org/nutrition/about (accessed on 25 November 2021).
16. Rosas, R.; Pimenta, F.; Leal, I.; Schwarzer, R. FOODLIT-PRO: Conceptual and empirical development of the Food Literacy Wheel. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2021; 72, pp. 99-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2020.1762547]
17. Rosas, R.; Pimenta, F.; Leal, I.; Schwarzer, R. FOODLIT-Tool: Development and Validation of the Adaptable Food Literacy Tool towards Global Sustainability within Food Systems. Appetite; 2022; 168, 105658. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105658]
18. Vidgen, H.A.; Gallegos, D. Defining Food Literacy and its Components. Appetite; 2014; 76, pp. 50-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.01.010]
19. Cullen, T.; Hatch, J.; Martin, W.; Higgins, J.W.; Sheppard, R. Food Literacy: Definition and Framework for Action. Can. J. Diet. Pract. Res.; 2015; 76, pp. 140-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3148/cjdpr-2015-010]
20. Azevedo Perry, E.; Thomas, H.; Samra, H.R.; Edmonstone, S.; Davidson, L.; Faulkner, A.; Petermann, L.; Manafò, E.; Kirkpatrick, S.I. Identifying Attributes of Food Literacy: A scoping review. Public Health Nutr.; 2017; 20, pp. 2406-2415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017001276]
21. Slater, J.; Falkenberg, T.; Rutherford, J.; Colatruglio, S. Food Literacy Competencies: A Conceptual Framework for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2018; 42, pp. 547-556. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12471]
22. Thomas, H.; Azevedo Perry, E.; Slack, J.; Samra, H.R.; Manowiec, E.; Petermann, L.; Manafò, E.; Kirkpatrick, S.I. Complexities in Conceptualizing and Measuring Food Literacy. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet.; 2019; 119, pp. 563-573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.10.015]
23. Vettori, V.; Lorini, C.; Milani, C.; Bonaccorsi, G. Towards the Implementation of a Conceptual Framework of Food and Nutrition Literacy: Providing Healthy Eating for the Population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 5041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245041]
24. Rothman, R.L.; Housam, R.; Weiss, H.; Davis, D.; Gregory, R.; Gebretsadik, T.; Shintani, A.; Elasy, T.A. Patient Understanding of Food Labels: The Role of Literacy and Numeracy. Am. J. Prev. Med.; 2006; 31, pp. 391-398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.025]
25. Rawl, R.; Kolasa, K.M.; Lee, J.; Whetstone, L.M. A Learn and Serve Nutrition Program: The Food Literacy Partners Program. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav.; 2008; 40, pp. 49-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2007.04.372]
26. West, E.G.; Lindberg, R.; Ball, K.; McNaughton, S.A. The Role of a Food Literacy Intervention in Promoting Food Security and Food Literacy—OzHarvest’s NEST Program. Nutrients; 2020; 12, 2197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu12082197] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32718054]
27. Kelly, R.K.; Nash, R. Food Literacy Interventions in Elementary Schools: A Systematic Scoping Review. J. School Health; 2021; 91, pp. 660-669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.13053] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34137459]
28. Thomas, H.M.; Irwin, J.D. Cook It Up! A Community-Based Cooking Program for at-Risk Youth: Overview of a Food Literacy Intervention. BMC Res. Notes; 2011; 4, 495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-495] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22085523]
29. Truman, E.; Lane, D.; Elliott, C. Defining Food Literacy: A Scoping Review. Appetite; 2017; 116, pp. 365-371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28487244]
30. Powell, L.J.; Wittman, H. Farm to School in British Columbia: Mobilizing Food Literacy for Food Sovereignty. Agric. Hum. Values; 2018; 35, pp. 193-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9815-7]
31. Wickham, C.A.; Carbone, E.T. “Just Say It like It Is!” Use of a Community-Based Participatory Approach to Develop a Technology-Driven Food Literacy Program for Adolescents. Int. Q. Community Health Educ.; 2018; 38, pp. 83-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272684X17749572] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29283040]
32. Brooks, N.; Begley, A. Adolescent Food Literacy Programmes: A Review of the Literature: Review of Adolescent Food Literacy Programmes. Nutr. Diet.; 2014; 71, pp. 158-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12096]
33. European Commission. Europeans Becoming Enthusiastic Users of Online Health Information. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/europeans-becoming-enthusiastic-users-online-health-information#:~:text=Six%20out%20of%20ten%20Europeans,aged%2055%20and%20over)%3B (accessed on 25 November 2021).
34. Eurostat. Digital Economy and Society Statistics—Households and Individuals. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Digital_economy_and_society_statistics_-_households_and_individuals#Internet_usage (accessed on 25 November 2021).
35. Hedin, B.; Katzeff, C.; Eriksson, E.; Pargman, D. A Systematic Review of Digital Behaviour Change Interventions for More Sustainable Food Consumption. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 2638. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11092638]
36. Yardley, L.; Choudhury, T.; Patrick, K.; Michie, S. Current Issues and Future Directions for Research into Digital Behavior Change Interventions. Am. J. Prev. Med.; 2016; 51, pp. 814-815. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.07.019]
37. Comber, R.; Thieme, A. Designing beyond Habit: Opening Space for Improved Recycling and Food Waste Behaviors through Processes of Persuasion, Social Influence and Aversive Affect. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput.; 2013; 17, pp. 1197-1210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0587-1]
38. Woolley, E.; Garcia-Garcia, G.; Tseng, R.; Rahimifard, S. Manufacturing Resilience via Inventory Management for Domestic Food Waste. Procedia CIRP; 2016; 40, pp. 372-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.070]
39. Pohl, M.; Weißenböck, E.; Wauschek, S.G.R.; Kalleitner-Huber, M.; Mraz, G.; Bernhofer, G. Designing Cooling Stations for Food Sharing in Public Spaces. 2017 Sustainable Internet and ICT for Sustainability (SustainIT); Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Funchal, Portugal, 2017; pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23919/SustainIT.2017.8379793]
40. Young, C.W.; Russell, S.V.; Robinson, C.A.; Chintakayala, P.K. Sustainable Retailing—Influencing Consumer Behaviour on Food Waste. Bus. Strateg. Environ.; 2017; 27, pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1966]
41. Begley, A.; Gallegos, D.; Vidgen, H. Effectiveness of Australian Cooking Skill Interventions. Br. Food J.; 2017; 119, pp. 973-991. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2016-0451]
42. Harrington, R.A.; Scarborough, P.; Hodgkins, C.; Raats, M.M.; Cowburn, G.; Dean, M.; Doherty, A.; Foster, C.; Juszczak, E.; Ni Mhurchu, C. et al. A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Digital Intervention Aimed at Improving Food Purchasing Behavior: The Front-of-Pack Food Labels Impact on Consumer Choice Study. JMIR Form. Res.; 2019; 3, e9910. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2196/formative.9910] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30958277]
43. Reicks, M.; Kocher, M.; Reeder, J. Impact of Cooking and Home Food Preparation Interventions among Adults: A Systematic Review (2011–2016). J. Nutr. Educ. Behav.; 2018; 50, pp. 148-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2017.08.004]
44. dos Santos Chagas, C.M.; Melo, G.R.-S.; Botelho, R.B.A.; Toral, N. Effects of the Rango Cards Game Intervention on Food Consumption, Nutritional Knowledge and Self-Efficacy in the Adoption of Healthy Eating Practices of High School Students: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. Public Health Nutr.; 2020; 23, pp. 2424-2433. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020000531] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32476640]
45. Serebrennikov, D.; Katare, B.; Kirkham, L.; Schmitt, S. Effect of Classroom Intervention on Student Food Selection and Plate Waste: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0226181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226181] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31918437]
46. Hutchesson, M.J.; Rollo, M.E.; Krukowski, R.; Ells, L.; Harvey, J.; Morgan, P.J.; Callister, R.; Plotnikoff, R.; Collins, C.E. EHealth Interventions for the Prevention and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: EHealth Interventions for Obesity in Adults. Obes. Rev.; 2015; 16, pp. 376-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/obr.12268] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25753009]
47. Young, C.L.; Mohebbi, M.; Staudacher, H.; Berk, M.; Jacka, F.N.; O’Neil, A. Assessing the Feasibility of an M-Health Intervention for Changing Diet Quality and Mood in Individuals with Depression: The My Food & Mood Program. Int. Rev. Psychiatry; 2021; 33, pp. 266-279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2020.1854193] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34039236]
48. Wickham, C.A.; Carbone, E.T. What’s Technology Cooking up? A Systematic Review of the Use of Technology in Adolescent Food Literacy Programs. Appetite; 2018; 125, pp. 333-344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.001]
49. Begley, A.; Paynter, E.; Butcher, L.; Dhaliwal, S. Effectiveness of an Adult Food Literacy Program. Nutrients; 2019; 11, 797. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11040797] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30959958]
50. Begley, A.; Paynter, E.; Butcher, L.M.; Bobongie, V.; Dhaliwal, S.S. Identifying Participants Who Would Benefit the Most from an Adult Food-Literacy Program. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 1272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071272] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30970671]
51. Begley, A.; Paynter, E.; Butcher, L.; Bobongie, V.; Dhaliwal, S.S. Identifying Who Improves or Maintains Their Food Literacy Behaviours after Completing an Adult Program. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 4462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124462] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32575889]
52. Dumont, C.; Butcher, L.M.; Foulkes-Taylor, F.; Bird, A.; Begley, A. Effectiveness of Foodbank Western Australia’s Food Sensations® for Adults Food Literacy Program in Regional Australia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 8920. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178920]
53. Schwarzer, R. Modeling Health Behavior Change: How to Predict and Modify the Adoption and Maintenance of Health Behaviors. Appl. Psychol.; 2008; 57, pp. 1-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00325.x]
54. Schwarzer, R.; Luszczynska, A. Health action process approach. Predicting and Changing Health Behaviour: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models; 3rd ed. Conner, M.; Norman, P. Open University Press, McGraw-Hill: Maidenhead, UK, 2015; pp. 252-278.
55. Michie, S.; Richardson, M.; Johnston, M.; Abraham, C.; Francis, J.; Hardeman, W.; Eccles, M.P.; Cane, J.; Wood, C.E. The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (v1) of 93 Hierarchically Clustered Techniques: Building an International Consensus for the Reporting of Behavior Change Interventions. Ann. Behav. Med.; 2013; 46, pp. 81-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6]
56. Moher, D.; Hopewell, S.; Schulz, K.F.; Montori, V.; Gotzsche, P.C.; Devereaux, P.J.; Elbourne, D.; Egger, M.; Altman, D.G. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. BMJ; 2010; 340, c869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869]
57. Order of Portuguese Psychologists. Code of Ethics. Available online: https://www.ordemdospsicologos.pt/ficheiros/documentos/opp_cod_deontologico_web.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2021).
58. Official Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (General Data Protection Regulation). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 (accessed on 24 November 2021).
59. Sniehotta, F.F.; Scholz, U.; Schwarzer, R. Bridging the Intention–Behaviour Gap: Planning, Self-Efficacy, and Action Control in the Adoption and Maintenance of Physical Exercise. Psychol. Health; 2005; 20, pp. 143-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440512331317670]
60. Graham, J.W. Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real World. Annu. Rev. Psychol.; 2009; 60, pp. 549-576. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530]
61. Laborde, D.; Martin, W.; Swinnen, J.; Vos, R. COVID-19 Risks to Global Food Security. Science; 2020; 369, pp. 500-502. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4765]
62. The World Bank. GDP Growth (Annual %). Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG (accessed on 24 November 2021).
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
1 WJCR-William James Center for Research, ISPA-Instituto Universitário, 1149-041 Lisboa, Portugal;
2 Department of Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany;