Preferences and Self-efficacy for Diet Modification Among Primary Care Patients

Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Obesity (Impact Factor: 3.73). 09/2009; 18(2):430-2. DOI: 10.1038/oby.2009.284
Source: PubMed


Limited data exist about patient preferences and self-efficacy for different diets. We explored the preferences and self-efficacy of primary care patients for reducing fat, reducing carbohydrates, or reducing calories. We conducted a self-administered survey study of 71 primary care patients (response rate of 52%). Of patients, 59%, 53%, and 60% had high self-efficacy for reducing fat, reducing carbohydrates, and reducing calories from their diet, respectively. Preferences were comparable, with 76% highly willing to reduce fat, 76% highly willing to reduce carbohydrates, and 72% of patients highly willing to reduce calories/portions. Female sex and higher BMI were associated with high self-efficacy for all three dietary changes. A significantly higher proportion of nonwhites than whites had high self-efficacy for reducing fat and reducing carbohydrates (P < 0.05). Obese patients in our study have similarly high willingness and self-efficacy and comparable preferences for adopting changes consistent with three popular diets.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This prospective study examined relationships between constructs from social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 1991) and the diabetes outcomes of dietary self-care and diabetes control. Longitudinal data were collected from 237 people newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes who filled in questionnaires on dietary self-care, and motivational factors derived from social-cognitive theory and self-determination theory. Blood samples were taken to assess diabetes control (HbA1c). Repeated measurements were taken every 3-4 months for a total of five time points over 18 months. Predictor measures included autonomy support, autonomous and controlled motivation, amotivation, dietary self-efficacy, positive and negative outcome expectancies for dietary self-care and self-evaluation. Age, sex, BMI, and diabetes knowledge were included as control measures. Using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) analyses two models were tested: a standard model reflecting longitudinal associations between absolute values of predicted and outcome variables; and a change model examining motivational predictors of changes over time in diabetes outcomes of dietary self-care and diabetes control (HbA1c). Dietary self-care was longitudinally associated with self-efficacy, self-evaluation (the strongest predictor) autonomy support and autonomous motivation, but not with controlled motivation or outcome expectancies. Changes in dietary self-care were predicted by changes in self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and controlled motivation but not by changes in autonomous motivation or autonomy support. Negative outcome expectancies regarding diet were longitudinally associated with HbA1c, and changes in negative outcome expectancies predicted changes in HbA1c. However, there were indications that dietary self-care predicted changes in HbA1c. The results indicate that autonomy support, self-efficacy and, in particular, self-evaluation are key targets for interventions to improve dietary self-care.
    Health Psychology 06/2011; 30(6):771-9. DOI:10.1037/a0024500 · 3.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors integrate research on impulsivity from the psychology area with standard economic theories of consumer demand to make novel predictions about the effects of market price changes on consumers' food consumption behavior. The results from multiple studies confirm that consumers exhibit undesirable asymmetric patterns of demand sensitivity to price changes for healthy and unhealthy food. For healthy food, demand sensitivity is greater for a price increase than for a price decrease. For unhealthy food, the opposite holds true. The research further shows that the undesirable patterns are attenuated or magnified for key policy-relevant factors that have been shown to decrease or increase impulsive purchase behavior, respectively. As the rising obesity trend brings American consumers' food consumption behavior under increased scrutiny, the focal findings hold significant implications for both public policy makers and food marketers.
    Journal of Marketing 03/2013; 77(2):124-138. DOI:10.2307/23487417 · 5.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our aim was to determine prototypical patterns of eating behaviour among Portuguese higher education students, and to relate these patterns with BMI. Data from 280 higher education students (63.2% females) aged between 18 and 27 years were analysed. Several eating behaviour dimensions (emotional and external eating, flexible and rigid restraint, binge eating, and eating self-efficacy) were assessed, and eating styles were derived through cluster analysis. BMI for current, desired and maximum self-reported weights and the differences between desired and current BMI and between maximum and current BMI were calculated. Women scored higher in emotional eating and restraint, whereas men showed higher eating self-efficacy. Men had higher current, desired and maximum BMI. Cluster analysis showed three eating styles in both male and female subsamples: "Overeating", "High self-efficacy" and "High restraint". High self-efficacy women showed lower BMI values than the others, and restrictive women had higher lost BMI. High self-efficacy men showed lower desired BMI than overeaters, and lower maximum and lost BMI than highly restrictive ones. Restrictive women and men differ on important eating behaviour features, which may be the cause of differences in the associations with BMI. Eating self-efficacy seems to be a central variable influencing the relationships between other eating behaviour dimensions and BMI.
    Appetite 09/2013; 71. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.024 · 2.69 Impact Factor