Public perceptions of personalised nutrition through the lens of Social Cognitive Theory

Abstract

Social Cognitive Theory has been used to explain findings derived from focus group discussions (N = 4) held in the United Kingdom with the aim of informing best practice in personalised nutrition. Positive expectancies included weight loss and negative expectancies surrounded on-line security. Monitoring and feedback were crucial to goal setting and progress. Coaching by the service provider, family and friends was deemed important for self-efficacy. Paying for personalised nutrition symbolised commitment to behaviour change. The social context of eating, however, was perceived a problem and should be considered when designing personalised diets. Social Cognitive Theory could provide an effective framework through which to deliver personalised nutrition.

Keywords

focus groups Food4Me personalised nutrition self-efficacy Social Cognitive Theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Annas

Elias

(2014) 23andMe and the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine 370(11): 985–988.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura

(1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37(2): 122–147.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. London: Worth Publishers.

Bandura

(1991) Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 248–287.

Bandura

(2004) Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior 31(2): 143–164.

Bishop

(2007) A reflexive account of reusing qualitative data: Beyond primary/secondary dualism. Sociological Research Online 12(3). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/2.html (accessed 12 February 2013).

Bloss

Madlensky

Schork

et al . (2011) Genomic information as a behavioral health intervention: Can it work? Personalized Medicine 8(6): 659–667.

Boyatzis

(1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA; London: SAGE.

10.

Fallaize

Macready

Butler

et al . (2015) The perceived impact of the NHS on personalised nutrition delivery in the UK. British Journal of Nutrition 113(8): 1271–1279.

11.

Fischer

ARH

Berezowska

van der Lans

et al . (2016) Willingness to pay for personalized nutrition across Europe. European Journal of Public Health 26(4): 640-644.

12.

Gibney

Walsh

(2013) The future direction of personalised nutrition: My diet, my phenotype, my genes. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72(2): 219–225.

13.

Glanz

Rimer

Lewis

(2002) Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (4th edn). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Guillaumie

Godin

Vézina-Im

(2010) Psychosocial determinants of fruit and vegetable intake in adult population: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 7(1): 12.

15.

Heaton

(2004) Reworking Qualitative Data. London: SAGE.

16.

Hendriks

(2013) Use of nutrigenomics endpoints in dietary interventions. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72(3): 348–351.

17.

McAlister

Perry

Parcel

et al .(2008) How individuals, environments, and health behaviours interact: Social Cognitive Theory. In: Glanz

Rimer

Viswanath

(eds) Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (3rd edn). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 169–188.

18.

Moore

(2007) (Re) using qualitative data. Sociological Research Online 12(3). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/2.html (accessed 12 February 2013).

19.

Morin

(2009) Knowledge and attitudes of Canadian consumers and health care professionals regarding nutritional genomics. OMICS – A Journal of Integrative Biology 13(1): 37–41.

20.

Nixon

Moore

Douthwaite

et al . (2012) Identifying effective behavioural models and behaviour change strategies underpinning preschool- and school-based obesity prevention interventions aimed at 4–6 -year-olds: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews 13(Suppl. 1): 106–117.

21.

Poínhos

van der Lans

Rankin

et al . (2014) Psychological determinants of consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition in 9 European countries. PLoS ONE 9: e110614.

22.

Ronteltap

Van Trijp

(2007) Consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition. Genes and Nutrition 2(1): 85–87.

23.

Stacey

James

Chapman

et al . (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of social cognitive theory-based physical activity and/or nutrition behavior change interventions for cancer survivors. Journal of Cancer Survivorship 9(2): 305–338.

24.

Stewart-Knox

Bunting

Gilpin

et al . (2009) Attitudes toward genetic testing and personalised nutrition in a representative sample of European consumers. British Journal of Nutrition 101(7): 982–989.

25.

Stewart-Knox

Rankin

Poínhos

et al . (2015) Promoting healthy dietary behaviour through personalised nutrition: Technology push or technology pull? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 74(2): 171–176.

26.

Stewart-Knox

Kuznesof

Robinson

et al . (2013) Factors influencing European consumer uptake of personalised nutrition. Results of a qualitative analysis. Appetite 66: 67–74.

27.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd edn). London: SAGE.