Trial · NCT07903935

Testing the Feasibility and Impact of a Whole-Food Plant-Based Diet Intervention on College Students

NCT07903935, Not applicable, Completed, Appalachian State University

3 sourcestrials-2026-11-12-0.5.0

Cite this record

ConductScience Library. Testing the Feasibility and Impact of a Whole-Food Plant-Based Diet Intervention on College Students. Trials, record NCT07903935. Release trials-2026-11-12-0.5.0, 12 Nov 2026. https://conductscience.org/library/trials/NCT07903935

On this page

Trial

As registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, in the graph's capture of the registry.

Title: Testing the Feasibility and Impact of a Whole-Food Plant-Based Diet Intervention on College Students
NCT number: NCT07903935
Status: Completed
Phases: Not applicable
Enrollment: 39 participants, actual
Lead sponsor: Appalachian State University
Conditions: Healthy, College Students, Diet Interventions, Vegan Diet, Feasibility Pilot Study, Diet Quality, Lipid Profile, Depressive Symptoms
Interventions: Interactive intervention group, Lecture-based intervention
First posted: 2026-10-29
Last updated: 2026-10-29

Source ClinicalTrials.gov

Registered outcomes23

Each outcome the trial registered, primary first, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.

List	Outcome	Time frame	Description
Primary	Feasibility and Acceptability: Study Uptake	From enrollment through the first 10 days of the study, i.e., the last day to have enrolled, completed an online baseline survey, and completed a baseline biometric measurement session	Feasibility and acceptability of the study design, i.e., study procedures, measurements, and intervention components, were measured via study uptake rate. Study uptake was defined as enrolling in the study, completing a baseline online survey, and completing a baseline measurement session. Higher study uptake reflected greater feasibility and acceptability of the study design.
Primary	Feasibility and Acceptability: Study Attrition	From enrollment to the end of the study at 6 weeks	Study attrition was computed based on non-completion of one or more of the measurements and, in the case of intervention participants, not attending any of the intervention sessions. Lower study attrition reflected greater feasibility and acceptability.
Primary	Feasibility and Acceptability: Intervention Engagement	Weeks 3 through 5 of the study	The researchers examined intervention engagement by taking attendance at the interactive and lecture-based intervention sessions and calculated rates of attendance of 1, 2, or 3 sessions. Attendance of at least one session was counted as receiving the intervention, i.e., engagement. Higher attendance supported better feasibility and acceptability of the intervention sessions.
Primary	Feasibility and Acceptability: Qualitative Assessment	At the end of the study, during week 6	Feasibility and acceptability of the study design, i.e., study measurement procedures, intervention sessions, and of following a whole-food plant-based vegan diet, were measured qualitatively via a semi-structured focus group session with a non-random subset of interactive (IA) and lecture-based (LB) intervention participants. More positive than negative comments and feedback supported greater feasibility and acceptability.
Primary	Feasibility and Acceptability: Food Acceptability Questionnaire	At the end of the study, during week 6	Feasibility and acceptability of following a whole-food plant-based vegan diet was measured via responses to the 12-item Food Acceptability Questionnaire as part of the post-intervention online survey. This questionnaire only provides descriptive data. There is no validated scoring procedure or cut-off for high versus low acceptability. Therefore, the findings were assessed descriptively, i.e., with frequencies.
Secondary	Predicted Dietary Intakes: Dietary Screener Questionnaire	From enrollment to the end of the study at 6 weeks	Diet quality was assessed using predicted dietary intakes calculated via the 26-item Dietary Screener Questionnaire (DSQ). This screener asks about the frequency of consumption in the past month of selected foods and drinks. The DSQ captures intakes of fruits and vegetables, dairy/calcium, added sugars, whole grains/fiber, red meat, and processed meat. Responses are on 9-point (for food items) and 11-point (for beverages) Likert scales, ranging from "never" to "two or more times/day" and "never" to "six or more times/day," respectively. Regression- and logistic-based scoring algorithms are used to convert self-reported food frequency data into quantitative daily intake estimates and prevalence probabilities. For this study, intakes more aligned with the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans reflected better diet quality. The researchers assessed differential change in mean predicted intakes descriptively and via effect sizes across the study groups.
Secondary	Diet Quality Changes: Plant-Based Natural and Animal-Based Processed Scores	From enrollment to the end of the study at 6 weeks	Diet quality was assessed via calculation of plant-based natural (PBN) and animal-based/processed (ABP) scores. The researchers assigned scores of 1 to 4 to quartiles of cup intakes of vegetables and fruits and ounce equivalents of whole grains (different cup and ounce equivalent thresholds by sex) to calculate the PBN scores. The PBN scores ranged from 3 to 12. The researchers assigned scores of 1 to 4 to different frequencies of intakes of dairy products and red and processed meats and quartiles of teaspoon per day intakes of added sugars to calculate ABP scores; ABP scores ranged from 5 to 20. Dairy product and red and processed meat frequency thresholds were the same by sex, and added sugar amounts differed by sex. Higher PBN and lower ABP scores suggested better overall diet quality. There are no validated cut-off scores for either. The researchers assessed differential change in group mean PBN and ABP scores descriptively and via effect sizes across the study groups.
Secondary	Dietary Adherence: Plant-Based Natural and Animal-Based Processed Scores	From enrollment to the end of the study at 6 weeks	Adherence to a whole-food plant-based (WFPB) vegan diet was assessed via calculation of plant-based natural (PBN) and animal-based/processed (ABP) scores. Scores of 1 to 4 were assigned to quartiles of cup intakes of vegetables and fruits and ounce equivalents of whole grains (different cup and ounce equivalent thresholds by sex) to calculate the PBN scores. The PBN scores ranged from 3 to 12. Scores of 1 to 4 were assigned to different frequencies of intakes of dairy products and red and processed meats and quartiles of teaspoon per day intakes of added sugars to calculate ABP scores. ABP scores ranged from 5 to 20. Dairy product and red and processed meat frequency thresholds were the same by sex, and added sugar amounts differed by sex. Higher PBN and lower ABP scores suggested better adherence to the diet. There are no validated cut-off scores. The researchers assessed differential change in group mean PBN and ABP scores descriptively and via effect sizes across study groups.
Secondary	Weight Changes	From enrollment to the end of the study at 6 weeks	The researchers measured weight in kilograms using a digital scale. Weight alone was not interpreted as high or low; rather, the researchers assessed differential change (gain or loss) in group mean weight descriptively and via effect sizes across the study groups. This measure was also used to calculate body mass index.
Secondary	Body Mass Index Changes	From enrollment to the end of the study at 6 weeks	The researchers measured height in centimeters using a stadiometer at baseline only. The researchers entered this height measurement together with the weight in kilograms into a body mass index (BMI) calculator to calculate and report BMI in kilograms/meter\^2. The researchers assessed differential change in group mean BMI descriptively and via effect sizes across the study groups. The reference ranges used to interpret group mean BMIs were as follows: BMI \< 18.5 = underweight; 18.5 to 24.9 = healthy weight; 25.0 to 29.9 = overweight; 30 or above = obesity.

1 to 10 of 23Source ClinicalTrials.gov

See all 23 registered outcomes

Outcomes0

Each outcome the trial posted results for, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.

None in this release.

Results by group0

Each measurement the trial posted, group by group, in the words and numbers it posted.

None in this release.

Participant flow0

How many started, completed or left each group, period by period.

None in this release.

Adverse events0

Each adverse event the trial posted, group by group: the participants affected out of those at risk.

None in this release.

Adverse event totals0

The totals the trial posted for each group.

None in this release.

Papers1

The papers the trial lists on ClinicalTrials.gov.

PMID	Listed as
39674948	BACKGROUND

Source PubMed

Grants0

The grants NIH RePORTER links to the trial, newest funded first: NIH's, and some of AHRQ's, CDC's, FDA's and VA's. Each shows its title, principal investigators, organization and funder in its newest year.

None in this release.

Trial comparisons0

Comparisons of the trial's two groups, calculated by ConductScience from the counts it posted.

None in this release.

Tests0

The ConductCognition tests this trial's registered outcomes name, as ScienceGraph matched them in trial-tests-2026-11-12-0.2.1.

None in this release.

Data dates

The day each source was copied for this release.

ClinicalTrials.gov: 2026-11-12; ClinicalTrials.gov
Results, from AACT: 2026-03-23; AACT
NIH grant links: 2026-11-13; NIH RePORTER

Sources 3

ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain

Each source's terms

ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
ClinicalTrials.govnone stated
NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain (NIH RePORTER)

ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.

For software

Read this trial from software.

The record and each of its lists are JSON, twenty rows a page. No key.

GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT07903935

GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT07903935/registered?page=2

API reference For AI assistants