. 2012 Jul 6;44(2):259–286. doi: 10.1007/s12160-012-9384-3

Table 2.

Study characteristics and effects found in the studies included in the review

First author(s)^a [reference number]	Country	Study population [N]	Intervention modes^b	Validated questionnaire	Outcome measurement instruments	Outcome measurement units	Results^c and effect size^d at short (ST), medium (MT), or long term (LT)^e
A. Physical activity
Adachi, 2007 [28]	Japan	Overweight Japanese women [205] recruited from the general population (Adachi, 2007)	C Self-help booklet	?	15-item	Self-rated physical activities (points 1 (bad)–3 (good)	LT No significant effects
Tanaka, 2010 [27]		Overweight Japanese men [51] recruited from the general population (Tanaka, 2010)	EXP1 C + self-monitoring of weight and walking		Pedometer	Daily walking steps
			EXP2 CT advice
			EXP3 ^f CT advice + self-monitoring of weight and walking
Carroll, 2010 [96]	USA	Inactive participants [394] recruited through primary care providers	C Generic HE	Yes	7-Day PA	Leisure-time PA (min/week)	MT No significant effects
Carroll, 2010 [96]	USA		EXP1 CT advice		Recall	Non-leisure-time PA (min/week)
Dunton, 2008 [62]	USA	Women [156] (21–65) recruited from the general population	C No intervention	Yes	Standardized activity inventory	MVPA (min/week)	ST No significant effects
			EXP1 CT advice			Walking (min/week)	MT Significant effect on MVPA
							ES: 0.24
							MT Significant effect on walking
							ES: 0.21
Hageman, 2005 [66]	USA	Women [31] (50–69 years) recruited through newspaper advertisement	C Generic HE	Yes	Modified 7-day physical activity recall	MVPA (min/week) calories expended daily	MT Significant effect on VO2 max
			EXP1 CT advice		Fitness walking test	Aerobic fitness (VO2 max in ml/kg/min), flexibility (cm)	ES: 0.42
					Sit-and-reach test
Hurling, 2007 [37]	UK	Participants [77] (30–55 years) recruited through market research recruitment agency	C No intervention	Yes	IPAQ	Overall PA (MET min/week)	ST Significant effect on leisure-time PA
			EXP1 CT advice		Accelerometer	Leisure-time PA (MET min/week)	Accelerometer data
						Overall sitting time (h/week)	Significant effect on MPA (3–6 MET range)
						Weekday sitting time (h/week)	ES: N/A
						Weekend sitting time (h/week)
Jacobs, 2004 [95]	USA	Women [511] (50–64) recruited from nutrition and PA program (WISEWOMAN)	C Generic HE	?	31-item PAA questionnaire	Score from 31-item scale: not very active (0)–very active (42)	LT No significant effect on PA score
Jacobs, 2004 [95]	USA		EXP1 CT advice
Marcus, 2007 [67]	USA	Sedentary participants [239] (18–65) recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	7-Day physical activity recall
			EXP1 CT advice (print-based)		Actigraph
			EXP2 CT advice (telephone-based)		Submaximal exercise threadmill test	MPA/VPA (min/week)	MT Significant effect on PA in EXP2 compared to C
						Aerobic fitness (VO2max in ml/kg/min)	ES: 0.46
							MT Significant effect on PA in EXP1 compared to C
							ES: 0.39
							MT No significant difference between EXP1 and EXP2
							LT Significant effect on PA in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: N/A
							LT No significant effect on PA in EXP1 compared to C
							LT No significant difference between EXP1 and EXP2
Marcus, 2007 [69]	USA	Sedentary participants [249] (18+) from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	7-Day physical activity recall	MPA/VPA (min/week)	MT/LT No significant effect on MVPA
			EXP1 CT advice (internet)		Submaximal exercise treadmill test	Aerobic fitness (VO2max in ml/kg/min)
			EXP2 CT advice (print-based)
Napolitano, 2006 [68]	USA	Sedentary women [280] recruited from the general population	C1 Generic HE	Yes	7-Day physical activity recall	MPA/VPA (min/week)	MT/LT No significant effect on MVPA
			C2 Self-help booklet
			EXP2 CT advice
Oenema, 2008 [60]	The Netherlands	Participants [2,159] (>30) recruited from online research panel	C No intervention	Yes	Short version of IPAQ	Self-rated PA level (scale from −2 to +2)	ST Significant effect on % compliant to PA guideline in at-risk group (those who did not comply with the PA guidelines at baseline)
Oenema, 2008 [60]	The Netherlands		EXP1 CT advice			% compliant to PA guideline (moderate intensity PA for at least 30 min/day in at least 5 days/week)	ES: 0.16
Pekmezi, 2009 [97]	USA	Sedentary Latinas [93] (18–65) recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	7-Day physical activity recall	MPA/VPA (min/week)	MT No significant effect on MVPA
Pekmezi, 2009 [97]	USA		EXP1 CT advice
Prochaska, 2008 [54]	USA	Participants [1400] at risk for at least one risk behavior (exercise, stress, BMI >25 kg/m² and smoking) recruited from a major medical university	C Health risk assessment	Yes	Self-reported level of exercise	% exercising moderately 30 min/day for at least 5 days/week	MT Significant effect on % exercising moderately 30 min/day for at least 5 days/week in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
			EXP1 C + coaching				ES: N/A
			EXP2 C + transtheoretic model-based feedback
Quintiliani, 2010 [59]	USA	Female college students [408] recruited from universities/colleges	C Generic HE	Yes	US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey	MVPA (min/week)	ST Significant effect on VPA in EXP2 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice (topic by choice)			VPA (min/week)	ES: 0.41
			EXP2 CT advice (topic by expert)
Slootmaker, 2009 [35]	The Netherlands	Participants [102] (20–40 years) recruited from worksites	C Generic HE	?	AQuAA[99]	LPA/MPA/VPA (MET min/week)	MT/LT No significant effects
Slootmaker, 2009 [35]	The Netherlands		EXP1 CT advice		Chester Step Test	Aerobic fitness (VO2max in ml/kg/min)
Smeets, 2007 [33]	The Netherlands	Participants [2,827] (18–65) recruited from companies and the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	SQUASH	Action moments/week	MT Significant effect on PA of EXP1 compared to C
De Vries, 2008 [32]			EXP1 CT advice (once delivered in 3 months (Smeets et al.))			% compliant to PA guideline (moderate intensity PA for at least 30 min/day in at least 5 days/week)	ES: 0.12
			EXP2 CT advice (3 times delivered in 9 months (De Vries et al.))				LT Significant effect on PA and % compliance to PA guideline of EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.15
							ES: 0.14
Smeets, 2008 [64]	The Netherlands	Participants [487] (18–65 year) recruited from the general population	C No intervention	Yes	SQUASH	Total PA (MET min/week)	MT Significant effect on transport related PA and total PA among motivated participants
			EXP1 CT advice			Transport related PA (MET min/week)	ES: 0.48
						Leisure-time related PA (MET min/week)	ES: 0.49
						Sports related PA (MET min/week)
Spittaels, 2007 [63]	Belgium	Participants [434] (20–55 year) recruited through parents and staff of primary/secondary schools	C No intervention	Yes	IPAQ	Total MVPA (min/week)	MT Significant effect on transportation PA, leisure-time PA and weekday sitting time in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice			Transportation PA (min/week)	EXP2 compared to C
			EXP2 CT advice + repeated feedback			Household PA (min/week)	ES (transportation PA): 0.21
						Leisure-time PA (min/week)	ES (leisure-time PA): 0.52
						Job-related PA (min/week) weekday sitting time (min/day)	ES (weekday sitting time): 1.58
						Weekend sitting time (min/day)	EXP1 compared to C
							ES (transportation PA): 0.18
							ES (leisure-time PA): 0.40
							ES (weekday sitting time): 1.62
Spittaels, 2007 [98]	Belgium	Participants [526] (25–55 year) recruited from worksites	C Generic HE	Yes	IPAQ	Total PA (min/week)	MT No significant effects in EXP1 or EXP2 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice		Accelerometer	MVPA (min/week)
			EXP2 CT advice + stage-of-change based emails			30 min of PA on most days (%)
Sternfeld, 2009 [36]	USA	Participants [787] recruited from administration offices of a large healthcare organization	C No intervention	Yes	Physical Activity Questionnaire adapted from Cross-Cultural Activity Patterns Questionnaire	Total PA (MET min/week)	ST Significant effect on MPA, VPA, walking, and sedentary behavior
						EXP1 CT advice	MT Significant effect on MPA, walking, and sedentary behavior
						MPA (min/week)	ST Significant effect on MPA, VPA, walking and sedentary behavior among those who chose the PA path of the intervention
						VPA (min/week)	ES: N/A
						Walking (min/week
						Sedentary behavior (min/week)
Van Keulen, 2011 [65]	The Netherlands	Participants [1,629] (45–70) recruited from general practices	C1 No intervention	Yes	28-item modified Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors	PA (hours/week)	MT Significant effect of EXP1 compared to C1
			C2 Coaching				ES: 0.20
			C3 C2 + EXP1				LT (~11 months) Significant effect of EXP1 compared to C1 and C3
			EXP1 TC advice				ES (EXP1-C1): 0.32
							ES (EXP1-C3): 0.15
							LT (~18 months) no significant effects
Van Stralen, 2009 [22]	The Netherlands	Participants [1971] (>50 years) recruited from Regional Municipal Health Councils	C No intervention	Yes	1-item from SQUASH	Self-rated PA (total weekly days of MPA)	MT (3 months) Significant effect on self-rated PA in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
Van Stralen, 2011 [23]			EXP1 CT advice (psychosocial)			Self-rated compliance with PA guidelines (% of participants that show compliance with guidelines)	ES: 0.20
			EXP2 CT advice (psychosocial + environmental)				ES: 0.20
							MT (3 months) Significant effect on PA initiation among insufficiently active participants in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.26
							ES: 0.21
							MT (6 months) Significant effect on self-rated PA in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.30
							ES: 0.35
							MT (6 months) Significant effect on PA initiation among insufficiently active participants in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.32
							ES: 0.27
							MT (6 months) Significant effect on PA maintenance among sufficiently active participants in EXP 1 and EXP 2 compared to C
							ES: 0.33
							ES: 0.34
							LT (12 months) Significant effect on self-rated PA in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.18 (for both EXP1 and EXP2)
Walker, 2009 [24]	USA	Women [225] (50–69) recruited from the general population	C Generic HE EXP1 CT advice	Yes	Modified 7-day Physical Activity Recall	MVPA (min/day)	MT Significant effect on lower body muscular strength
Walker, 2010 [25]							ES: −0.36
					1 mile walk test Modified sit-and-reach test	Kilocalories expended per kilogram/day	LT (12 months) Significant effect on lower body muscular strength
					Repeated timed chair stands	Time engaged in strengthening and stretching exercise (min/week)	ES: −0.41
						Aerobic fitness (VO2max in ml/kg/min)	LT (18 months) Significant effect on lower body muscular strength
						Lower body muscular strength (timed chair stands in s)	ES: −0.51
Wanner, 2009 [61]	Switzerland	Participants [1,531] recruited from the general population	C Generic HE EXP1 CT advice	?	4-item derived from official PA monitoring in Swiss population Accelerometer	MPA/VPA (min/week)	ST/LT No significant effect on MPA and VPA
Werkman, 2010 [56]	The Netherlands	Recent retirees [415] (55–65) recruited from pre-retirement workshops	C Generic HE EXP1 CT advice	Yes	Dutch version of the PA Scale for the Elderly (PASE) [96]	Daily routine PA (min/week)	LT No significant effect (12 and 24 months) on daily routine PA, recreation/sports PA, Σ household activities (0–6) and PASE-score
						Recreation/sports PA (min/week)
						Σ household activities (0–6) PASE-score (0–400)
Winett, 2007 [34]	USA	Participants [1071] recruited from churches	C No intervention	?	Pedometer	Daily step counts	LT (7 and 16 months) Significant effect on PA in EXP2 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice				ES (7 months): 0.23
			EXP2 CT advice + church support				ES (16 months): 0.27
B. Fat consumption
Blair Irvine, 2004 [71]	USA	Participants [517] recruited from a large hospital	C No intervention	Yes	21-item Diet Habits Questionnaire	Fat eating habits/behavior score	ST Significant effects on fat eating habits/behavior
			EXP1 CT advice				ES (1-month): −0.49
							ES (2-months): −0.18
Dutton, 2008 [77]	USA	Sedentary women [280] recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	National Cancer Institute Screeners	Fat intake (en%)	MT/LT No significant effects on fat intake
			EXP1 Self-help booklet
			EXP2 CT advice
Elder, 2005 [26]	USA	Latinas [357] recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	Nutrition data system: 24 h dietary recall interview	% calories from fat	ST Significant effects on total and saturated fat intake in EXP2 compared to EXP1
Elder, 2006 [39]			EXP1 CT advice			Total and saturated fat intake (g)	LT No sustained significant effects
Elder, 2006 [39]			EXP2 CT advice + Promotoras
Fries, 2005 [70]	USA	Participants [754] (18–72) recruited from physician practices	C No intervention	?	Fat and fiber behavior-related questionnaire	Score from 0–3	ST Significant effect on dietary fat behavior
			EXP1 CT advice				ES: −0.41
							MT Significant effect on dietary fat behavior
							ES: −0.29
							LT Significant effect on dietary fat behavior
							ES: −0.23
Gans, 2009 [75]	USA	Participants [1841] with low income, recruited from waiting rooms of public health clinics	C Generic HE	Yes	Adapted Food Habits Questionnaire	Fat intake (Food Habits Questionnaire score: low score = high prevalence fat-lowering behavior, thus lower fat intake)	MT Significant effect on fat intake in EXP2 and EXP3 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice (at once)				ES (EXP2-C): −0.31
			EXP2 CT advice (in 4 installments)				ES (EXP3-C): −0.31
			EXP3 EXP2 with retailoring
Jacobs, 2004 [61]	USA	Women [511] (50–64) recruited from nutrition and PA program (WISEWOMAN)	C Generic HE	Yes	54-item Dietary risk assessment	Score from 54-item scale: 0–108 not very atherogenic (0) to very atherogenic diet (108)	LT No significant effect on saturated fat and cholesterol intake
Jacobs, 2004 [61]	USA		EXP1 CT advice
Kroeze, 2008 [72]	The Netherlands	Participants [442] (18–65) recruited from companies and general population	C Generic HE	Yes	104-item FFQ	Total fat intake (g/day, en%)	ST Significant effects on total fat and saturated fat intake in EXP1 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice (interactive CD-ROM)			Saturated fat intake (g/day, %en)	ES (total fat): −0.31
			EXP2 CT advice (print)				ES (saturated fat): −0.22
							ST Significant effects on total fat intake among risk consumers in EXP1 compared to C
							ES: −0.41
							ST Significant effects on total fat in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: −0.23
							ST Significant effects on total fat and saturated fat intake among risk consumers in EXP2 compared to C
							ES (total fat): −0.49
							ES (saturated fat): −0.42
							MT Significant effect on total fat and saturated fat intake among risk consumers in EXP2 compared to C
							ES (total fat): −0.53
							ES (saturated fat): −0.54
Kroeze, 2008 [73]	The Netherlands	Participants [574] (18–65) recruited from large companies and the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	104-item FFQ	Total fat intake (g/day)	ST Significant effect on awareness of fat intake in EXP1 and EXP3 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice (personal)		1-item	Saturated fat intake (g/day)	ES (EXP1): 0.30
			EXP2 CT advice (personal–normative)			Self-rated fat intake (awareness) (−2 to +2)	ES (EXP3): 0.41
			EXP3 CT advice (personal–normative–action)				ST Significant effect on fat intake and saturated fat intake in EXP3 compared to C
							ES (fat intake): −0.52
							ES (saturated fat intake): −0.46
							MT Significant effect on fat intake in EXP1, EXP2 and EXP3 compared to C
							ES (EXP1): 0.34
							ES (EXP2): 0.55
							ES (EXP3): 0.53
							MT Significant effect on saturated fat intake in EXP3 compared to C
							ES: −0.51
							MT Significant effect on fat and saturated fat intake among underestimators in EXP3 compared to C
							ES (fat intake): −0.64
							ES (saturated fat intake): -0.63
Ni Mhurchu, 2010 [53]	New Zealand	Participants [1,104] recruited from a selection of customers registered to use the Shop ‘N Go System and in-store and community-based recruitment	C No intervention	?	Electronic scanner (Shop ‘N Go system)	% of energy from saturated fats in purchases	MT No significant effect on saturated fat purchases
			EXP1 CT advice EXP2 CT advice + discount
			EXP3 Discount
Oenema, 2008 [60]	The Netherlands	Participants [2,159] (>30) recruited from online research panel	C No intervention	Yes	35-item FFQ	Saturated fat intake (fat points/day from 0 to 80)	ST Significant effect on saturated fat intake
			EXP1 CT advice		1-item	Self-rated intake (scale from −2 to +2)	ES: −0.16
							ST Significant effect on saturated fat intake in at-risk group (those who did not comply with the recommended level of saturated fat intake at baseline)
							ES: −0.23
Prochaska, 2005 [30]	USA	Sedentary primary care patients [5,407] at risk for at least one of the target behaviors recruited from primary care practices (Prochaska, 2005-458).	C No intervention
Prochaska, 2004 [29]		Parents of teenagers [2,460] at risk for at least one of the target behaviors recruited from schools (Prochaska, 2005-486)	EXP1 CT advice	Yes	22-item Dietary Behavior Questionnaire	Score on subscales: avoidance substitution modification	Among sedentary primary care patients
							LT (12 months) Significant effects on avoidance, modification and substitution
							ES (avoidance):0.24
							ES (modification):0.18
							ES (substitution):0.22
							LT (24 months) Significant effects on avoidance
							ES (avoidance):0.27
							ES (substitution):0.20
							Among parents of teenagers
							LT (12 months) Significant effects on avoidance and substitution
							ES (avoidance): 0.16
							ES (substitution): 0.19
							LT (24 months) Significant effects on avoidance and substitution
							ES (avoidance): 0.18
							ES (substitution): 0.23
Smeets, 2007 [33]	The Netherlands	Participants [2,827] (18–65) recruited from companies and the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	FFQ	Fat intake (g)	MT Significant effect on fat intake in EXP1 compared to C
De Vries, 2008 [32]			EXP1 CT advice (once delivered in 3 months (Smeets, 2007)			Saturated fat intake (g)	ES: −0.12
			EXP2 CT advice (3 times delivered in 9 months (De Vries, 2008)			% compliant to guidelines for saturated fat intake	LT Significant effect on % compliant to guideline on saturated fat intake in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: −0.18
Sternfeld, 2009 [36]	USA	Participants [787] recruited from administration offices of a large healthcare organization	C No intervention	Yes	Diet questionnaire based on Block Food Questionnaire	Saturated fats (g/day)	ST Significant effect on saturated and trans fat intake
			EXP1 CT advice			Trans fats (g/day)	ST Significant effect on saturated and trans fat intake among those who chose the fats/sugar path of the intervention
							MT Significant effect on saturated and trans fat intake
							ES: N/A
De Bourdeaudhuij, 2007 [74]	Belgium	Participants [539] recruited from companies	C No intervention	Yes	48-item FFQ	Total fat intake (g/day)	MT Significant effect on energy from fat and total fat intake in EXP1 compared to C1 and C2
			EXP1 CT advice on PA and fat intake sequentially delivery				Energy from fat (%)
			EXP2 CT advice on PA and fat intake simultaneously delivered				Fat intake (seperate food groups) (g/day)
			EXP3 CT advice only on fat intake				EXP1 compared to C1
							ES (energy from fat): −0.37
							ES (total fat intake): −0.32
							EXP1 compared to C2
							ES (energy from fat): −0.13
							ES (total fat intake): 0.09
							MT Significant difference in energy from fat between C1 and C2
							ES: −0.24
							MT Significant effect on energy from fat and total fat intake among participants who meet/do not meet fat intake recommendations in EXP1 compared to C1 and C2
							ES: N/A
Walker, 2009 [24]	USA	Women [225] (50–69) recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	Web-based Block98 FFQ	% calories from fat	LT (6 months) Significant effect on % calories from saturated fat
Walker, 2010 [25]			EXP1 CT advice			% calories from saturated fat	ES: −0.30
							LT (12 months) Significant effect on % calories from saturated fat
							ES: −0.49
							LT (18 months) Significant effect on % calories from saturated fat
							ES: −0.56
Werkman, 2010 [56]	The Netherlands	Recent retirees [415] (55–65) recruited from pre-retirement workshops	C Generic HE
			EXP1 CT advice	Yes	Semi quantitative	Fat intake (en%)	LT No significant effects on fat intake
					FFQ
Winett, 2007 [34]	USA	Participants [1,071] recruited from churches	C No intervention	Yes	Block98 FFQ	% kcal from fat	LT No significant effects on fat intake
			EXP1 CT advice		Food shopping receipts
			EXP2 CT advice + church support
C. Fruit and vegetable consumption
Alexander, 2010 [80]	USA	Participants [2,540] (21–65) recruited from health plans	C Generic HE	Yes	16-item FFQ by National Cancer Institute	Fruit and vegetables intake (servings in past month)	LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in the past month in EXP2 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice		2-item	Fruit and vegetables intake (servings on a typical day)	ES: 0.10
			EXP2 CT advice + personal counseling				LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake on a typical day in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
							ES (EXP1): 0.08
							ES (EXP2): 0.13
Blair Irvine, 2004 [71]	USA	Participants [517] recruited from a large hospital	C No intervention	Yes	5-A-Day Screener	Fruit and vegetables consumption score	ST Significant effects on fruit and vegetables consumption
			EXP1 CT advice				ES (1 month): 0.21
							ES (2 months): 0.04
Dutton, 2008 [71]	USA	Sedentary women [280] recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	National Cancer Institute Screeners	Fruit and vegetables intake (daily servings)	MT/LT No significant effects on fruit and vegetables intake
			EXP1 Self-help booklet
			EXP2 CT advice
Gans, 2009 [75]	USA	Participants [1,841] with low income, recruited from waiting rooms of public health clinics	C Generic HE	?	7-item National Cancer Institute fruit and vegetables screener assessment tool	Fruit and vegetables intake (servings/day)	MT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C and EXP3
			EXP1 CT advice (at once)				ES (EXP1-C): 0.18
			EXP2 CT advice (in 4 installments)				ES (EXP1-EXP3): 0.20
			EXP3 EXP2 with retailoring				ES (EXP2-C): 0.12
							ES (EXP2-EXP3): 0.14
							LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.17
Heimendinger, 2005 [81]	USA	Participants [3.402] (18+) recruited through Cancer Information Service offices (callers)	C Generic HE (1 booklet)	Yes	1-item	Fruit and vegetables intake (daily servings)	LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 and EXP3 compared to C
		EXP1 CT advice (1 booklet)			7-item FFQ		ES: N/A
		EXP2 CT advice (4 booklets)
		EXP3 CT advice (4 booklets + retailoring)
Kreuter, 2005 [79]	USA	Lower-income African–American women [1,227] (18–65) from 10 urban public health centers	C No intervention	Yes	13-item FFQ	Fruit and vegetables intake (servings/day)	MT No significant effects on fruit and vegetables intake
			EXP1 CT advice tailored on behavioral constructs				LT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP3 compared to other groups
			EXP2 CT advice tailored on cultural factors				LT Significant effect among lower motivated women on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP3 compared to other groups
			EXP3 EXP1 + EXP2				ES: N/A
Nitzke, 2007 [78]	USA	Participants [2,024] (18–24) recruited from non-college venues	C No intervention	Yes	5 A Day Screener	Fruit and vegetables intake (servings)	MT Significant effects on fruit and fruit and vegetables intake and perceived vegetables intake ES (fruit intake): 0.12
Do, 2008 [31]			EXP1 CT advice		2-item	Perceived daily intake	ES (fruit and vegetables intake): 0.14
					26-item FFQ	Variety in fruit and vegetables intake (number of different items consumed at least once a month, regardless of amount)	ES (perceived vegetables intake): 0.08
							LT Significant effects on fruit and fruit and vegetables intake and perceived intake of vegetables and fruit and vegetables
							ES (fruit intake): 0.15
							ES (fruit and vegetables intake): 0.13
							ES (perceived vegetables intake): 0.11
							ES (perceived intake fruit and vegetables): 0.12
							LT Significant effects on variety in fruit and vegetables consumption, consumption of seasonal fruits, juices and high beta-carotene vegetables
							ES (variety fruit) >1.00
							ES (variety vegetables) >1.00
							ES (seasonal fruits consumption) >1.00
							ES (juices consumption) >1.00
							ES (high beta-carotene vegetables consumption) > 1.00
Prochaska, 2005 [30]	USA	Sedentary primary care patients [5,407] at risk for at least one of the target behaviors recruited from primary care practices	C No intervention	Yes	22-item Dietary Behavior Questionnaire	Score on subscale fruit and vegetables	LT No significant effect on fruit and vegetables in both study samples
Prochaska, 2004 [29]	USA	Parents of teenagers [2,460] at risk for at least one of the target behaviors recruited from schools	EXP1 CT advice
Smeets, 2007 [33]	The Netherlands	Participants [2,827] (18–65) recruited from companies and the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	FFQ	Fruit intake (pieces/day)	MT Significant effect on fruit intake among participants who did not meet recommendations for any behavior in EXP1 compared to C
De Vries, 2008 [32]		EXP1 CT advice (once delivered in 3 months (Smeets et al.))				Vegetables intake (g/day)	ES: 0.30
		EXP2 CT advice (3 times delivered in 9 months (De Vries et al.))				% compliant to guidelines for fruit intake (at least 2 pieces of fruit for 7 days/week)	MT Significant effect on vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C
						Vegetables intake	ES: 0.10
						% compliant to guidelines for vegetables intake (at least 200 g of vegetables/day for 7 days/week)	LT Significant effect on fruit intake and % compliant to fruit guidelines in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.35
							ES: 0.24
							LT Significant effect on vegetable intake and % compliant to vegetables guidelines in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.32
							ES: 0.08
Sternfeld, 2009 [36]	USA	Participants [787] recruited from administration offices of a large healthcare organization	C No intervention	Yes	Diet questionnaire based on Block Food Questionnaire	Fruit and vegetables intake (cup-equivalents/day)	ST Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake
			EXP1 CT advice				ST Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake among those who chose the fruit and vegetables path of the intervention
							MT Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake
							ES: N/A
Van Keulen, 2011 [65]	The Netherlands	Participants [1,629] (45–70) recruited from general practices	C1 No intervention	Yes	16-item short questionnaire	Fruit intake (servings/day)	MT Significant effect on fruit intake of EXP1 compared to C1 and C3
			C2 Coaching			Vegetables (g/day)	ES (EXP1-C1): 0.19
			C3 C2 + EXP1				ES (EXP1-C3): 0.18
			EXP1 TC advice				MT Significant effect on vegetables intake of EXP1 compared to C1 and C3
							ES (EXP1-C1): 0.10
							ES (EXP1-C3): 0.12
							LT (~11 months) Significant effect on fruit intake of EXP1 compared to C1
							ES: 0.32
							LT (~11 months) Significant effect on vegetables intake of EXP1 compared to C1, C2 and C3
							ES (EXP1-C1): 0.33
							ES (EXP1-C2): 0.24
							ES (EXP1-C3): 0.19
							LT (~18 months) Significant effect on fruit intake of EXP1 compared to C1, C2 and C3
							ES (EXP1-C1): 0.35
							ES (EXP1-C2): 0.22
							ES (EXP1-C3): 0.24
							LT (~18 months) Significant effect on vegetables intake of EXP1 compared to C1
							ES: 0.27
Walker, 2009 [24]	USA	Women [225] (50–69) recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	Web-based Block98 FFQ	Fruit and vegetables intake (daily servings)	LT (6 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake
Walker, 2010 [25]			EXP1 CT advice				ES: 0.22
							LT (12 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake
							ES: 0.41
							LT (18 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake
							ES: 0.40
Werkman, 2010 [56]	The Netherlands	Recent retirees [415] (55–65) recruited from pre-retirement workshops	C Generic HE	Yes	Semi quantitative	Fruit and vegetables intake (g/MJ)	LT No significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake
Werkman, 2010 [56]	The Netherlands		EXP1 CT advice		FFQ
Winett, 2007 [34]	USA	Participants [1,071] recruited from churches	C No intervention	Yes	Block98 FFQ	Fruit and vegetables intake (g/1000 kcal)	LT (7 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice		Food shopping receipts		ES: 0.44
			EXP2 CT advice + church support				Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.57
							LT (16 months) Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C
							ES: 0.12
							Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.32
D. Other dietary topics
Adachi, 2007 [28]	Japan	Overweight Japanese women [205] recruited from the general population (Adachi, 2007)	C1 Self-help booklet	?	Weight parameters	BMI (kg/m²)	ST Significant effect on BMI in EXP1 & EXP2 compared to C1 & C2 among overweigh Japanese women
Tanaka, 2010 [27]		Overweight Japanese men [51] recruited from the general population (Tanaka, 2010)	C2 C + self- monitoring of weight and walking				BMI
			EXP1 CT advice				ES EXP1-C1: −0.60
			EXP2 ^f CT advice + self- monitoring of weight and walking				ES EXP1-C2: −0.48
							ES EXP2-C1: −0.77
							ES EXP2-C2: −0.66
							ST Significant effect on BMI in EXP2 compared to C1among overweigh Japanese men
							BMI
							ES EXP2-C1: −0.69
							MT Significant effect on BMI in EXP2 compared to C1 & C2 among overweight Japanese women
							BMI
							ES EXP2-C1: −0.70
							ES EXP2-C2: −0.58
							LT Significant effect on BMI in EXP2 compared to C1 and C2 among overweight Japanese women
							BMI
							ES EXP2-C1: −0.59
							ES EXP2-C2: −0.55
							LT No significant effect on BMI in EXP2 compared to C1among overweigh Japanese men
Elder, 2005 [26]	USA	Latinas [357] recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	Nutrition data system (NDS): 24 h dietary recall interview	Total energy intake (kcal)	ST/LT No significant effects
Elder, 2006 [39]			EXP1 CT advice			Total carbohydrates intake (g)
Elder, 2006 [39]			EXP2 CT advice + promotoras
Fries, 2005 [70]	USA	Participants [754] (18–72) recruited from physician practices	C No intervention	?	Fat and fiber behavior-related questionnaire	Score from 0–3	ST Significant effect on fiber behavior
			EXP1 CT advice				ES: −0.35
							MT Significant effect on fiber behavior
							ES: −0.24
Haapala 2009 [55]	Finland	Overweight participants [125] (25-44) from the general population	C Generic HE	Weight parameters	Body weight (kg)		LT Significant effect on weight loss and waist circumference
			EXP1 CT advice		% Weight loss		ES (weight loss): −0.14
					Waist circumference		ES (waist circumference): −0.18
Kroeze, 2008 [72]	The Netherlands	Participants [442] (18–65) recruited from companies and general population	C Generic HE	Yes	104-item FFQ	Energy intake (MJ/day)	ST Significant effects on energy intake in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
			EXP1 CT advice (CD-ROM)				ES: −0.28
			EXP2 CT advice (print)				ES: −0.38
							ST Significant effects on energy intake among risk consumers in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
							ES: −0.50
							ES: −0.66
							MT Significant effects on energy intake among risk consumers in EXP1 and EXP2 compared to C
							ES: −0.68
							ES: −0.44
							MT Significant effects on energy intake in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: −0.26
Poddar, 2010 [82]	USA	College students [294] recruited from a land grant, research-intensive university	C No intervention	?	7 day food records	Average daily dairy servings	MT No significant effect
Poddar, 2010 [82]	USA		EXP1 CT advice
Prochaska, 2008 [54]	USA	Participants [1400] at risk for at least one risk behavior (exercise, stress, BMI >25 kg/m² and smoking) recruited from a major medical university	C Health Risk Assesment	Yes	Self-report	% above/below BMI = 25 kg/m²	MT No significant effect on BMI
			EXP1 C + coaching
			EXP2 C + TTM-based feedback
Rothert, 2006 [38]	USA	Overweight and obese (BMI = 27–40 kg/m²) participants [2862] recruited from health care delivery system	C Generic HE	?	Self-report	% of baseline weight lost	MT/LT Significant effect on % of baseline weight lost
Rothert, 2006 [38]	USA		EXP1 CT advice				ES > 1.00
Sternfeld, 2009 [36]	USA	Participants [787] recruited from administration offices of a large healthcare organization	C No intervention	Yes	Diet questionnaire based on Block Food Questionnaire	Added sugars (g/day)	ST/MT No significant effects on added sugars
Sternfeld, 2009 [36]	USA		EXP1 CT advice
Walker, 2009 [24]	USA	Women [225] (50–69) recruited from the general population	C Generic HE	Yes	Web-based Block98 FFQ	Whole-grain intake (daily servings)	LT No significant effects
			EXP1 CT advice		Bioelectrical impedance analysis	% Body fat
					Weight parameters	BMI (kg/m²)
Werkman, 2010 [56]	The Netherlands	Recent retirees [415] (55–65) recruited from pre-retirement workshops	C Generic HE	Yes	Weight parameters	Waist circumference (cm), BMI (kg/m²)	LT Significant effect on waist circumference among men with low education
			EXP1 CT advice		Semi quantitative	Energy intake (MJ/day)
					FFQ
Winett, 2007 [34]	USA	Participants [1,071] recruited from churches	C No intervention	Yes	Block98 FFQ	Fiber intake (g/1,000 kcal)	LT (7 months)
			EXP1 CT advice		Weight parameters	Weight (lb)	Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C
			EXP2 CT advice + church support		Food shopping receipts		ES: 0.35
							Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.44
							Significant effect on weight
							In EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.21
							LT (16 months)
							Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP1 compared to C
							ES: 0.20
							Significant effect on fruit and vegetables intake in EXP2 compared to C
							ES: 0.28

C control condition, EXP1 experimental condition 1, EXP2 experimental condition 2, EXP3 experimental condition 3, ES effect size, [125] 125 participants, (50–69) 50 to 69 years old, HE health education, (L/M/V/MV) PA (low-/moderate-/vigorous-/moderate to vigorous-intensity) physical activity, CT computer-tailored, VO2max maximal oxygen uptake, MET metabolic equivalent, FFQ food frequency questionnaire, IPAQ International Physical Activity Questionnaire, SQUASH Short Questionnaire Assessing Health-enhancing physical activity, AQuAA Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents and Adults, BMI body mass index, N/A not available

^aSome publications reported on the characteristics and effects of the same intervention and are therefore clustered in one cell

^bNo intervention equals no info in the 2006 review; generic HE equals generic info in the 2006 review

^cSignificant effect = effect that reached statistical significance (p<0.05)

^dEffect sizes were calculated when mean and SD were available at post-test and a significant effect in favor of tailoring had been found. ES is interpreted according to Cohen’s guidelines [67] based on an application in Dolan et al. [69]; cutoff values of 0.2–0.5 = small, 0.5–0.8 = moderate, and >0.8 = large effects

^eShort term (ST), <3 months; medium term (MT), 3–6 months; long term (LT), >6 months

^fIn the study of Tanaka et al. [27], only EXP2 versus the self-help booklet was tested