Eeva Rantala

Ms. Eeva Rantala

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
14 October 2021 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EREeva Rantala
Eeva Rantala
SVSaara Vanhatalo
Saara Vanhatalo
TTTanja Tilles-Tirkkonen
Tanja Tilles-Tirkkonen
MKMarkus Kanerva
Markus Kanerva
PHPelle Guldborg Hansen
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
PAPilvikki Absetz
Pilvikki Absetz
Redesigning choice environments appears a promising approach to encourage healthier eating and physical activity, but little evidence exists of the feasibility of this approach in real-world settings. The aim of this paper is to portray the implementation and feasibility assessment of a 12-month mixed-methods intervention study, StopDia at Work, targeting the environment of 53 diverse worksites. The intervention was conducted within a type 2 diabetes prevention study, StopDia. We assessed feasibility through the fidelity, facilitators and barriers, and maintenance of implementation, building on implementer interviews (n = 61 informants) and observations of the worksites at six (t1) and twelve months (t2). We analysed quantitative data with Kruskall–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests and qualitative data with content analysis. Intervention sites altogether implemented 23 various choice architectural strategies (median 3, range 0–14 strategies/site), employing 21 behaviour change mechanisms. Quantitative analysis found implementation was successful in 66%, imperfect in 25%, and failed in 9% of evaluated cases. These ratings were independent of the ease of implementation of applied strategies and reminders that implementers received. Researchers’ assistance in intervention launch (p = 0.02) and direct contact to intervention sites (p < 0.001) predicted higher fidelity at t1, but not at t2. Qualitative content analysis identified facilitators and barriers related to the organisation, intervention, worksite environment, implementer, and user. Contributors of successful implementation included apt implementers, sufficient implementer training, careful planning, integration into worksite values and activities, and management support. After the study, 49% of the worksites intended to maintain the implementation in some form. Overall, the choice architecture approach seems suitable for workplace health promotion, but a range of practicalities warrant consideration while designing real-world implementation.

FSFabiola Silvaggi
Fabiola Silvaggi
MEMichela Eigenmann
Michela Eigenmann
CSChiara Scaratti
Chiara Scaratti
EGErika Guastafierro
Erika Guastafierro
CTClaudia Toppo
Claudia Toppo
MLMatilde Leonardi
Matilde Leonardi
In recent decades, the number of people living with one or more chronic diseases has increased dramatically, affecting all sectors of society, particularly the labour market. Such an increase of people with chronic diseases combined with the aging of working population affects income levels and job opportunities, careers, social inclusion and working conditions. Both legislation and company regulations should take into account the difficulties that workers experiencing chronic diseases may face in order to be able to formulate innovative and person-centred responses to effectively manage this workforce while simultaneously ensuring employee wellbeing and continued employer productivity. The European Joint Action “CHRODIS PLUS: Implementing good practices for Chronic Diseases” supports European Union Member States in the implementation of new and innovative policies and practices for health promotion, diseases prevention and for promoting participation of people with chronic diseases in labour market. Therefore, a Toolbox for employment and chronic conditions has been developed and its aim is to improve work access and participation of people with chronic diseases and to support employers in implementing health promotion and chronic disease prevention activities in the workplace. The Toolbox consists of two independent instruments: the Training tool for managers and the Toolkit for workplaces that have been tested in different medium and large companies and working sectors in several European countries.

15 May 2022 in Trends in Food Science & Technology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
EREeva Rantala
Eeva Rantala
ABAngelos Balatsas-Lekkas
Angelos Balatsas-Lekkas
NSNesli Sozer
Nesli Sozer
KPKyösti Pennanen
Kyösti Pennanen

9 September 2021 in JMIR Diabetes
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KJKari Jalkanen
Kari Jalkanen
RJRiia Järvenpää
Riia Järvenpää
TTTanja Tilles-Tirkkonen
Tanja Tilles-Tirkkonen
JMJanne Martikainen
Janne Martikainen
EAEmma Aarnio
Emma Aarnio
TGThe StopDia Study Group
The StopDia Study Group
Background: Clinical trials have shown that type 2 diabetes (T2D) is preventable through lifestyle interventions targeting high-risk people. Nevertheless, large-scale implementation of risk identification followed by preventive interventions has proven to be challenging. Specifically, recruitment of participants into preventive interventions is an important but often overlooked part of the intervention. Objective: This study aims to compare the reach and yield of different communication channels to engage people at increased risk of T2D to fill in a digital screening questionnaire, with emphasis on reaching those at most risk. The participants expressing their willingness to participate is the final step in the risk screening test, and we aim to determine which channels had the most participants reach this step. Methods: We established a stepwise web-based T2D risk screening tool with automated feedback according to the T2D risk level and, for those who were eligible, an invitation to participate in the StopDia prevention intervention study conducted in a primary health care setting. The risk estimate was based on the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score; history of repeatedly measured high blood glucose concentration; or, among women, previous gestational diabetes. We used several channels to invite people to the StopDia web-based screening tool, and respondents were classified into 11 categories based on the channel through which they reported having learned about StopDia. The demographics of respondents reached via different communication channels were compared using variance analysis. Logistic regression was used to study the respondents’ likelihood of progressing through risk screening steps. Results: A total of 33,399 persons started filling the StopDia screening tool. Of these, 86.13% (28,768/33,399) completed the test and named at least one communication channel as the source of information about StopDia. Altogether, 26,167 persons filled in sufficient information to obtain risk estimates. Of them, 53.22% (13,925/26,167) were at increased risk, 30.06% (7866/26,167) were men, and 39.77% (10,136/25,485) had low or middle education levels. Most frequently mentioned channels were workplace (n=6817), social media or the internet (n=6712), and newspapers (n=4784). The proportion of individuals at increased risk was highest among those reached via community pharmacies (415/608, 68.3%) and health care (1631/2535, 64.33%). The communication channel reaching the largest percentage of interested and eligible men (1353/3979, 34%) was relatives or friends. Health care (578/1069, 54.07%) and radio or television (225/487, 46.2%) accounted for the largest proportion of people with lower education. Conclusions: Communication channels reaching a large number of people, such as social media and newspapers, were the most effective channels for identifying at-risk people. Personalized approaches increased the engagement of men and less-educated people. Community pharmacies and health care services reached people with a particularly high T2D risk. Thus, communication and recruitment channels should be selected and modified based on the intended target group.

10 September 2022 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EREeva Rantala
Eeva Rantala
EJElina Järvelä-Reijonen
Elina Järvelä-Reijonen
Kati PetterssonKati Pettersson
Kati Pettersson
JLJanne Laine
Janne Laine
PVPaula Vartiainen
Paula Vartiainen
LKLeila Karhunen
Leila Karhunen
Easier recognition and enhanced visibility of healthy options supposedly increase healthy choices, but real-world evidence remains scarce. Addressing this knowledge gap, we promoted nutritionally favourable foods in a workplace cafeteria with three choice-architectural strategies—priming posters, point-of-choice nutrition labels, and improved product placement—and assessed their effects on visual attention, food choices, and food consumption. Additionally, we developed a method for analysing real-world eye-tracking data. The study followed a pretest–posttest design whereby control and intervention condition lasted five days each. We monitored visual attention (i.e., total number and duration of fixations) and food choices with eye tracking, interviewed customers about perceived influences on food choices, and measured cafeteria-level food consumption (g). Individual-level data represents 22 control and 19 intervention participants recruited at the cafeteria entrance. Cafeteria-level data represents food consumption during the trial (556/589 meals sold). Results indicated that the posters and labels captured participants’ visual attention (~13% of fixations on defined areas of interest before food choices), but the intervention had insignificant effects on visual attention to foods, on food choices, and on food consumption. Interviews revealed 17 perceived influences on food choices, the most common being sensory appeal, healthiness, and familiarity. To conclude, the intervention appeared capable of attracting visual attention, yet ineffective in increasing healthier eating. The developed method enabled a rigorous analysis of visual attention and food choices in a natural choice setting. We discuss ways to boost the impact of the intervention on behaviour, considering target groups’ motives. The work contributes with a unique, mixed-methods approach and a real-world setting that enabled a multi-dimensional effects evaluation with high external validity.

7 December 2023 in BMC Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EREeva Rantala
Eeva Rantala
SVSaara Vanhatalo
Saara Vanhatalo
Federico J.A. Perez-CuetoFederico J.A. Perez-Cueto
Federico J.A. Perez-Cueto
JPJussi Pihlajamäki
Jussi Pihlajamäki
KPKaisa Poutanen
Kaisa Poutanen
PAPilvikki Absetz
Pilvikki Absetz
Background: Altering the choice architecture of decision contexts can assist behaviour change, but the acceptability of this approach has sparked debate. Considering hypothetical interventions, people generally welcome the approach for promoting health, but little evidence exists on acceptance in the real world. Furthermore, research has yet to explore the implementers’ perspective, acknowledging the multidimensionality of the acceptability construct. Addressing these knowledge gaps, this study evaluated the acceptability of a quasi-experimental implementation-effectiveness trial that modified the worksite choice architecture for healthy eating and daily physical activity. Methods: Fifty-three worksites participated in the 12-month intervention and implemented altogether 23 choice architecture strategies (Mdn 3/site), including point-of-choice prompts and changes to choice availability or accessibility. Retrospective acceptability evaluation built on deductive qualitative content analysis of implementer interviews (n = 65) and quantitative analysis of an employee questionnaire (n = 1124). Qualitative analysis examined implementers’ thoughts and observations of the intervention and its implementation, considering six domains of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability: ethicality, affective attitude, burden, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and perceived effectiveness. Quantitative analysis examined employees’ acceptance (7-point Likert scale) of eight specific intervention strategies using Friedman test and mixed-effects logistic regression. Results: Implementers considered the choice architecture approach ethical for workplace health promotion, reported mostly positive affective attitudes to and little burden because of the intervention. Intervention coherence supported acceptance through increased interest in implementation, whereas low perceived utility and high intensity of implementation reduced cost acceptance. Perceived effectiveness was mixed and varied along factors related to the implementer, social/physical work environment, employer, and employee. Employees showed overall high acceptance of evaluated strategies (Mdn 7, IQR 6.4–7), though strategies replacing unhealthy foods with healthier alternatives appeared less supported than providing information or enhancing healthy option availability or accessibility (p-values < 0.02). Greater proportion of male employees per site predicted lower overall acceptance (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.2–16.5). Conclusions: Work communities appear to approve workplace choice architecture interventions for healthy eating and physical activity, but numerous factors influence acceptance and warrant consideration in future interventions. The study contributes with a theory-based, multidimensional evaluation that considered the perspectives of implementers and influenced individuals across heterogeneous real-world settings.