What makes a plant-based diet? a review of current concepts and proposal for a standardized plant-based dietary intervention checklist

Within the last decades, plant-based diets have received increasing interest for their potential benefits to human and environmental health. The concept of plant-based diet, however, varies widely in its definition. Current definitions range from the exclusion of all animal products to diets that include meat, fish, and dairy in varying quantities. Therefore, the main objectives of this review were twofold: (a) to investigate how researchers use the term plant-based diet in nutrition intervention studies and (b) what types of food a plant-based diet may include. Searching two databases, we found that the term “plant-based diet” evokes varying ideas to researchers and clinicians. Fifty percent of the retrieved studies that included a plant-based dietary intervention completely proscribed animal products and used the term plant-based diet interchangeably with a vegan diet. In contrast, an ~33% of trials included dairy products and 20% of dietary interventions emphasized a semi-vegetarian dietary pattern. Based on specific examples, we point out how the usage of the umbrella term “plant-based diet” may cause significant ambiguity. We often encountered incomplete descriptions of plant-based dietary interventions, which makes comparison and reproducibility of studies difficult. As a consequence, we urge others to use the term “plant-based diet” only in conjunction with a detailed dietary description. To facilitate this process, we provide a template of a standardized plant-based intervention reporting checklist. Finally, the present review also highlights the urgent need for a consensus definition of the term plant-based diet and its content.

Application of the Templates TIDieR and CERT Reveal Incomplete Reporting and Poor Replicability of Exercise Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background: Exercise is strongly recommended for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, incomplete intervention reporting in clinical trials limits the replication of exercise protocols. As previously demonstrated by us for exercise and hypertension, the reporting quality might also be insufficient in studies on T2DM and exercise. Objective: To assess completeness of exercise intervention reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for T2DM. Methods: Two independent reviewers applied the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) to 23 exercise trials obtained from the most recent and frequently cited meta-analysis in current guidelines. The completeness of reporting was evaluated focusing on the F.I.T.T. components (frequency, intensity, time, type). Interrater agreement and associations with publication year and journal impact factor were examined. Results: Mean CERT score was 11/19 (range 5–17), and 8/12 (range 4-12) for TIDieR. F.I.T.T. components were almost completely described, whereas overall completeness of exercise reporting was 60% and 68% (CERT and TIDieR). Replication of each exercise of the respective program was not possible in 52% of interventions. The majority of items had excellent agreement. No associations with publication year or impact factor were found. Conclusion: Exercise interventions were not sufficiently reported in RCTs that currently guide clinical practice in T2DM. Replication in further studies or clinical practice is limited due to poor exercise description. We suggest the use of the more specific CERT for reporting results of exercise interventions. Further refinement for internal diseases is needed to better describe exercise interventions.

A systematic review of music-induced substance craving

Background: Conditioning- and cue-induced craving theories indicate that music has the potential to induce substance craving. A better understanding of this phenomenon could enhance treatment and prevent misuse, relapse, and overdose. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review was to locate and examine studies using music to induce substance craving in humans. We sought to discover if music can induce substance craving as well as specific aspects of the music and how it was used. Method: Adhering to the PRISMA Statement and Checklist, we conducted a systematic review of literature on music-induced substance craving in nine databases. We extracted data from studies meeting our inclusion criteria, which related to substance craving induced by music and data based on music intervention reporting guidelines. Results: We reviewed 751 research outputs. A total of 33 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were found, indicating that various types of music can induce alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, and general substance craving. In most of the studies, music was used as a component of a mood induction technique or in a virtual reality setting that led to craving. There tended to be a lack of detail about the music itself and most authors did not adhere to music intervention reporting guidelines. In the majority of studies, the researchers selected the music to induce negative mood states so as to elicit craving. Conclusion: Music has the potential to induce substance craving. While the music used in studies varied considerably and tended to be well controlled from a research design perspective, the music was not based on the music psychology literature, and authors did not adequately report essential aspects of the music. Implications for clinical practice, limitations, and suggestions for future research are provided.

The quality of intervention reporting in trials of therapeutic exercise for hip osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis of a systematic review

Background Therapeutic exercise is recommended as a core treatment for hip osteoarthritis (HOA). Whilst it is widely accepted that exercise can improve pain and disability, optimal type and dose of exercise are yet to be agreed upon. This may, in part, be attributed to the wide variation and inadequate reporting of interventions within the literature. This study evaluates the quality of intervention reporting among trials of therapeutic exercise in HOA. Methods Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were sourced in a systematic review, completed in August 2020. Two raters independently used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) to evaluate intervention reporting. Correlations between quality assessment scores and CERT and TIDieR scores evaluated the relationship between internal validity and external applicability. The year of publication was compared to the quality of reporting scores. Results Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis. On average, studies were awarded 9.43 ± 1.95 out of 12 points for the TIDieR checklist (range 4–12) and 13.57 ± 4.01 out of 19 points for the CERT (range 5–19). Pearson’s correlation coefficient suggested that the quality of reporting had improved over time and that there was a fair, positive relationship between internal validity and external applicability. Discussion Whilst the quality of intervention reporting is improving, many RCTs of therapeutic exercise in HOA lack the detail necessary to allow accurate evaluation and replication. Researchers are encouraged to utilise the standardised reporting guidelines to increase the translation of effective interventions into clinical practice.

Game-based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING): A Review on the Conceptual Ambiguity Surrounding Gamification and Serious Games in Healthcare (Preprint)

BACKGROUND In healthcare, using game-based intervention approaches to increase motivation, engagement, and overall sustainability of health behaviors is steadily becoming more common. The most prevailing approaches for such game-based interventions in healthcare research are gamification and serious games. Various researchers have discussed substantial conceptual differences between these two concepts, supported by empirical studies showing differences in the effects on specific health behaviors. However, researchers also frequently report cases where terms related to these two concepts are used ambiguously or even interchangeably. It remains unclear to which extent existing healthcare research explicitly distinguishes between gamification and serious games and whether it draws on existing conceptual considerations in order to do so. OBJECTIVE Our study aims to address this lack of knowledge by capturing the current state of conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in healthcare research. Furthermore, we provide tools for researchers to disambiguate reporting on game-based interventions. METHODS We employed a 2-step research approach. First, we conducted a systematic literature review of 206 studies published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and its sister journals containing terms related to either gamification, serious games, or both. We analyzed their conceptualizations of gamification and serious games, as well as distinctions between the two concepts. Second, based on the literature review findings, we developed a set of guidelines for researchers reporting on game-based interventions and evaluated them with a group of 7 experts from the field. RESULTS Our results show that less than half of concept mentions are accompanied by an explicit definition. For the distinction between the two concepts, we identified 4 common approaches: implicit distinction, synonymous use of terms, serious games as gamified systems, and distinction based on the full game dimension. Our Game-based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING) consist of 25 items grouped into 4 topics: (1) Conceptual Focus, (2) Contribution, (3) Mindfulness about Related Concepts, and (4) Individual Concept Definitions. CONCLUSIONS Conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in healthcare literature are strongly heterogeneous, leading to conceptual ambiguity. Following the GAMING guidelines can support authors in rigorous reporting on study results of game-based interventions.

How can better monitoring, reporting and evaluation standards advance behavioural public policy?

Behavioural public policy interventions have been implemented across the world, targeting citizens, professionals, politicians and policymakers. This article examines poor quality reporting of interventions and methods in some behavioural public policy research. We undertake a review of existing reporting standards to assess their suitability for the behavioural public policy context. Our findings reveal that the adoption of standards can improve the reliability and reproducibility of research; provide a more robust evidence base from which to generalise findings; and convince sceptics of the value of behavioural public policy research. We conclude that use of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy (BCTTv1) would add rigour to intervention reporting. We argue there is a need for a combined tool to guide the design and reporting of randomised controlled trials, incorporating elements from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and other sources.