About evidence based and beyond: A discourse-analytic study of stakeholders' talk on involvement in the early development of personalized nutrition

Health Education Research

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 253-269

  Bouwman, Laura I ^a   Te Molder, Hedwig F M ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; NETHERLANDS; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES; PROFESSIONAL ROLE;

EID: 62549095232     PISSN: 02681153     EISSN: 14653648     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/her/cyn016     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ministry of Health. Living Longer in Good Health - Also a Question of a Healthy Lifestyle. The Hague, the Netherlands: Dutch Ministry of Health and Welfare and Sports, 2004.
2. WHO. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2004.
3. Brug J, Oenema A, Campbell M. Past, present, and future of computer-tailored nutrition education. Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 77: 1028S-34.
4. Contento I, Bach G, Bronner Y et al. The effectiveness of nutrition education and implications for nutrition education policy, programs and research: a review of research. J Nutr Educ 1995; 27: 277-420.
5. Kroeze W, Werkman A, Brug J. A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors. Ann Behav Med 2006; 31: 205-23.
6. Brug J, Glanz K, Van Assema PP et al. The impact of computer-tailored feedback and iterative feedback on fat, fruit, and vegetable intake. Health Educ Behav 1998; 25: 517.
7. Kreuter MW, Farrell D, Levitch L et al. Tailored Health Messages: Customizing Communication with Computer Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.
8. Curry S, Grothaus L, Wagner E. A randomized trial of self-help materials, personalized feedback, and telephone counselling with non-volunteer smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005; 63: 1005-14.
9. Brug J, Oenema A, Kroeze W et al. The internet and nutrition education: challenges and opportunities. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005; 59: S130-9.
10. De Bourdeaudhuij I, Brug J. Tailoring dietary feedback to reduce fat intake: an intervention at the family level. Health Educ. Res. 2000; 15: 449-62.
11. Kreuter MW, Oswald DL, Bull FC et al. Are tailored health education materials always more effective than non-tailored materials? Health Educ Res 2000; 15: 305-15.
12. Bouwman LI, Hiddink GJ, Koelen MA et al. Personalized nutrition communication through ICT application: how to overcome the gap between potential effectiveness and reality. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005; 59: S108.
13. NuGO. The European Nutrigenomics Organisation., 2007. Available at: www.nugo.org. Accessed: August 2007.
14. Castle D, Cline C, Daar AS et al. Science. Society and the Supermarket: The Opportunities and Challenges of Nutrigenomics, 1st edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.
15. Bouwman LI, Koelen MA, Hiddink GJ. The personal factor in nutrition communication. In: Kok F, Bouwman LI, Desiere F (eds). Personalised Nutrition: Principles and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007, 169-83.
16. Ordovas J, Corella D. Nutrition, genomics and cardiovascular disease risk. In: Kok F, Bouwman L, Desiere F (eds). Personalized Nutrition, Principles and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007, 33-48.
17. Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C. Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2006; 26: 485-96.
18. Wilsdon J, Willis R. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: DEMOS, 2004.
19. Ronteltap A, van Trijp JCM, Renes RJ. Expert views on critical success and failure factors for nutrigenomics. Trends Food Sci Technol 2007; 18: 189.
20. Garud R, Ahlstrom D. Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. J Eng Technol Manag 1997; 14: 25-48.
21. Green L, Kreuter M. Health Program Planning: an Educational and Ecological approach, 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
22. Granner ML, Sharpe PA. Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Educ Res 2004; 19: 514-32.
23. Kreuter MW, Lezin NA, Young LA. Evaluating community-based collaborative mechanisms: implications for practitioners. Health Promot Pract 2000; 1: 49-63.
24. Roussos ST, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health 2000; 21: 369-402.
25. Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Educ Res 1993; 8: 315-30.
26. Milio N. Nutrition and health - patterns and policy perspectives in food-rich countries. Soc Sci Med 1989; 29: 413-23.
27. Butterfoss FD. Process evaluation for community participation. Annu Rev Public Health 2006; 27: 323-40.
28. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA et al. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health 1998; 19: 173-202.
29. Kegler MMC, Steckler AA, McLeroy KK et al. Factors that contribute to effective community health promotion coalitions: a study of 10 Project ASSIST coalitions in North Carolina. American Stop Smoking Intervention Study for Cancer Prevention. Health Educ Behav 1998; 25: 338.
30. Rip A. Co-evolution of Science, Technology and Society. Expert Review for Bundesministerium Bildung und Forchung Förderinitiative Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002.
31. Schot J, Rip A. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1997; 54: 251-68.
32. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 2005; 27: 268-91.
33. Rip A. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 2006; 15: 349-65.
34. Rip A, Van den Belt H. Constructive Technology Assessment: Towards a Theory. Enschede: University of Twente, 1988.
35. Callon M. Technological conception and adoption network: lessons for the CTA practitioner. In: Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (eds). Managing Technology in Society. London: Pinter Publisher, 1995, 307-30.
36. Potter J. Discourse analysis. In: Hardy M, Bryman A (eds). Handbook of Data Analysis. London: Sage, 2004, 607-21.
37. Potter J, Wetherell M. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage, 1987.
38. Potter J, Wetherell M. Discourse analysis. In: Smith J, Harré R, Langenhove Lv (eds). Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage, 1995, 80-92.
39. Potter J, Wetherell M. Analysing discourse. In: Bryman A, Burgess R (eds). Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge, 1994, 47-66.
40. TeMolder HFM. Discourse of dilemmas: an analysis of communication planners' accounts. Br J Soc Psychol 1999; 38: 245-63.
41. Koelen M, Van den Ban A. Health education and health promotion 2004, 138-40.
42. Lawes R. Marriage: an analysis of discourse. Br J Soc Psychol 1999; 38: 1-20.
43. Potter J, Hepburn A. Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities. Qual Res Psychol 2005; 2: 38-55.
44. Wetherell M, Potter J. Mapping the Language of racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992.
45. Cochrane-HP&PH. Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field. Available at: http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/cochrane/welcome/index. htm 2007. Accessed: August 2007.
46. WHO. Bangkok Charter for Health Promotion. The Bangkok Charter for Health Promotion in a Globalized World. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2005.
47. Padmos H, Te Molder H, Mazeland H. On doing being personal: citizen talk as an identity-suspending device in public debates on GMOs. In: Van Est R, Hanssen L, Crapels O (eds). Analysing Citizenship Talk: Social Positioning in Political and Legal Decision-making Procedures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006, 276-95.
48. Collingridge D. The Social Control of Technology. New York: St Martin's Press, 1980.
49. Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P et al. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Brussels: Commission of European Committees, FAIR CT98-3844. DG12-SSMI 2001.
50. Te Molder HFM, Gutteling J. The issue of food genomics: about reluctant citizens and united experts. In: Van Est R, Hanssen L, Crapels O (eds). Genes for Your Food-Food for Your Genes. Societal Issues and Dilemmas in Food Genomics. Working document 92. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, 2003, 117-28.
51. Frewer L, Hunt S, Brennan M et al. The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. J Risk Res 2003; 6: 75-85.
52. Mirand AL, Beehler GP, Kuo CL et al. Explaining the deprioritization of primary prevention: physicians' perceptions of their role in the delivery of primary care. BMC Public Health 2003; 3: [online-publication]. Accessed: August 2007.
53. Mirand AL, Beehler GP, Kuo CL et al. Physician perceptions of primary prevention: qualitative base for the conceptual shaping of a practice intervention tool. BMC Public Health 2002; 2: [online publication]. Accessed: August 2007.