Virtual Reality and Powerpoint Grocery Store Tours: Equally Effective in Improving Self-efficacy in Randomised Control Trial. Issue 8 (November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pilut, Jennifer; Hollis, James; Lanningham-Foster, Lorraine; Pitchford, E. Andrew; Litchfield, Ruth
• Is Part Of: American journal of health promotion. Volume 36:Issue 8(2022)
• Page Start: 1346
• Page End: 1349
• Publication Date: 2022-11
• Subjects: nutrition < interventions -- employee assistance programs < interventions -- population health < interventions -- education/communications < awareness < strategies -- active living/built environment < opportunity < strategies -- community < specific settings -- nutrition literacy -- self-efficacy -- virtual reality -- nutrition education; Health promotion -- Periodicals; Health Promotion; Health promotion; Periodicals; Periodicals; 613.05
• DOI: 10.1177/08901171221108274
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0890-1171

Abstract

Purpose: Compare computer-based virtual reality (CBVR) and voice-over PowerPoint (PP) grocery store tours (GST) on adult nutrition literacy (NL) and healthful food purchasing self-efficacy (HFPSE). Design: Participants (n = 68) recruited from University worksite wellness program and randomly assigned to CBVR or PP (CBVR = 35; PP = 33). Intervention: Four-week culinary/nutrition education program. Initial three weeks provided identical education for both groups. Week four implemented GST intervention using CBVR or PP. Measures: NL and HFPSE surveys before, after, and three-months post from the start of program. Analysis: Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis with RMANOVA (95% confidence intervals [CI] and effect sizes) to examine change in NL and HFPSE between CBVR and PP groups over 4-week intervention and 3-month retention period. Results: 43 of 68 participants [CBVR (n = 19) and PP (n = 24)] were included in analyses. Both groups significantly improved HFPSE over time (P<.001, CBVR = 46.23% PP = 33.34%), but there were no differences between groups ( P = .21) or group by time interaction ( P = .31). NL did not change for either group ( P = .83, CBVR = 1.11%; PP = .12%) nor were there differences between groups ( P = .07). Conclusions: CBVR and PP GST significantly improved and maintained higher HFPSE scores.