Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 14;22(1):97.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-025-01796-7.

Feasibility of a co-designed and personalised intervention to improve vegetable intake in rural-dwelling young adults

Katherine Mary Livingstone  1 , Jonathan C Rawstorn  2 , Stephanie R Partridge  3   4 , Yuxin Zhang  2 , Eric O  5 , Stephanie L Godrich  6 , Sarah A McNaughton  7   8 , Gilly A Hendrie  9 , Kathleen M Dullaghan  2 , Gavin Abbott  2 , Lauren C Blekkenhorst  10   11 , Ralph Maddison  2 , Scott Barnett  12 , John C Mathers  13 , Laura Alston  14   15
Affiliations

Feasibility of a co-designed and personalised intervention to improve vegetable intake in rural-dwelling young adults

Katherine Mary Livingstone et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. .

Abstract

Background: This study determined the feasibility, acceptability, engagement and efficacy of a co-designed and personalised digital intervention to increase vegetable intake (Veg4Me) in young (18-to-35 years) rural-dwelling Australian adults.

Methods: Participants living in rural Australia were recruited via local government networks and social media and randomised to receive 12-weeks’ access to personalised (intervention) or non-personalised (control) versions of the free Veg4Me web application. The intervention included: (1) personalised recipes, (2) geo-located food environment map, (3) healthy eating resources, (4) goal-setting portal, and (5) personalised e-newsletters. The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, participation, and retention rate). Secondary outcomes were user engagement, acceptability, and changes in dietary intake and habits. Descriptive statistics were presented for the intervention and control groups. Generalised linear models estimated group differences in outcomes at 12-weeks.

Results: Of the 125 eligible individuals who registered Veg4Me accounts, 116 were randomised and 83 completed postintervention data collection. Recruitment, participation and retention rates were 47%, 93% and 72%, respectively. Intervention participants had higher engagement (median 20 [IQR 3, 54] vs. 6 [IQR 1, 28] page visits/week) and acceptability of the intervention (76%; vs. 52%) than control. Almost all intervention participants liked having access to the recipe library (93%) and reported that the e-newsletters prompted them to access the intervention (90%). Most accessed the goal-setting function (78%), food environment map (76%), and healthy eating resources (63%). More intervention participants reported their vegetable intake had changed in the last 12 weeks, compared with the control (85% vs. 57%; p = 0.010). Mean vegetable intake at 12 weeks for intervention and control was 2.73 (SD 1.1) and 2.66 (SD 1.4) serves/day, respectively (p = 0.76). At 12 weeks, for the intervention and control, confidence to shop regularly for nutritious foods was 68% and 55% (p = 0.09), to cook root vegetables was 88% and 81% (p = 0.11), and to cook pulses was 54% and 48%, respectively (p = 0.52).

Conclusions: A co-designed and personalised digital intervention to increase vegetable intake was feasible, engaging and acceptable among rural-dwelling young adults. Although change in reported vegetable intake was small, findings showed promise for improving dietary intake and habits. Larger trials of effectiveness are needed to determine whether personalised digital interventions can help address health inequities experienced by rural-dwelling young adults.

Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12623000179639, prospectively registered on 21/02/2023, according to the World Health Organizational Trial Registration Data Set. Universal Trial Number U1111-1284-9027.

Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-025-01796-7.

Keywords: Diet; Intervention; Rural; Vegetable intake; Young adults.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by Deakin University’s Human Ethics Advisory Group– Health (HEAG-H 06_2023). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The datasets generated and/or analyses generated will not be publicly available but may be made available by the first author on reasonable request and upon approval by the Deakin Human Ethics Advisory Group Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: KML is an Associate Editor for the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. KML was not involved in the journal’s peer review process of, or decisions related to, this manuscript. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT diagram describing study design and flow of participants through the 12-week Veg4Me randomised controlled trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Median (IQR) number of visits to pages (a) and median (IQR) duration of page visits (b) across the 12 weeks in the control and intervention
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Number of participants who set goals in the 12-week intervention and percentage according to goal type (recipe goal, healthy eating goal, local food environment map goal, unstructured goal)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Acceptability of Veg4Me using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire using a 7-point Likert scale. The darker the colour the more participants agreed with the following questionnaire items: (1) Overall, I am satisfied with how easy it is to use this system; (2) It was simple to use this system; (3) I was able to complete the tasks and scenarios quickly using this system; (4) I felt comfortable using this system; (5) It was easy to learn to use this system; (6) I believe I could become productive quickly using this system; (7) The system gave error messages that clearly told me how to fix problems; (8) Whenever I made a mistake, I could recover easily and quickly; (9) The information provided with this system was clear; (10) It was easy to find the information I needed; 11) The information was effective in helping me complete the tasks and scenarios; 12) The organisation of information on the system screens was clear; 13) The interface of this system was pleasant; 14) I liked using the interface of this system; 15) This system has all the functions and capabilities I expect it to have; 16) Overall, I am satisfied with this system
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Australian Institute of Health Welfare. Rural and remote health 2019 [Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/rural-remote-australians/rural-remote-he...]
    1. Alston L, Allender S, Peterson K, Jacobs J, Nichols M. Rural inequalities in the Australian burden of ischaemic heart disease: A systematic review. Heart Lung Circ. 2017;26(2):122–33. - PubMed
    1. Chisholm M, Russell D, Humphreys J. Measuring rural allied health workforce turnover and retention: what are the patterns, determinants and costs? Aust J Rural Health. 2011;19(2):81–8. - PubMed
    1. OECD. Delivering Quality Education and Health Care to All2021.
    1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Health Survey. 2017-18: First results 2018 [Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/nat...]

LinkOut - more resources