| Literature DB >> 16076386 |
Elisabeth Kvaavik1, Nanna Lien, Grethe S Tell, Knut-Inge Klepp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The predictive value of the psychosocial constructs of Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) on subsequent dietary habits has not been previously investigated in a multivariate approach that includes demographic factors and past dietary behaviour among adults. The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent TPB constructs, including intention, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and perceived social norms, measured at age 25 predicted four eating behaviours (intake of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, total fat and added sugar) eight years later.Entities:
Year: 2005 PMID: 16076386 PMCID: PMC1208934 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-2-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Psychosocial and dietary factors at baseline (mean age 25 years). The Oslo Youth Study 1991
| Men (n = 238*) | Women (n = 279*) | p-value** | ||
| Fruit and vegetable score | Range | 1.0 – 5.0 | 1.0 – 5.0 | <0.001 |
| Whole grain score | Range | 1.0 – 5.0 | 1.0 – 5.0 | 0.925 |
| Fat score | Range | 1.0 – 5.0 | 1.0 – 4.3 | <0.001 |
| Sugar score | Range | 1.0 – 5.0 | 1.0 – 5.0 2.0 | 0.004 |
| Attitude | Range | 2.4 – 16.7 | 2.4 – 18.9 | <0.001 |
| Subjective norm | Range | 1.2 – 15.0 | 1.2 – 18.3 | 0.612 |
| Perceived behavioural control | Range | 1.1 – 4.0 | 1.2 – 4.0 | <0.001 |
| Perceived social norms | Range | 1.0 – 4.0 | 1.0 – 4.0 | 0.029 |
* n differ slightly between different variables due to missing values. ** p-value for difference between men and women.
Dietary and demographic factors at follow up (mean age 33 years). The Oslo Youth Study 1999.
| Variable | Categories | Men (n = 240*) | Women (n = 279*) | p-value** |
| Fruit and vegetable intake | Grams per day, mean (SD) | 335 (192) | 367 (213) | 0.074 |
| Whole grain intake | Grams per day, mean (SD) | 143 (128) | 125 (99) | 0.070 |
| Total fat intake | Per cent from total energy intake, mean (SD) | 31.5 (5.9) | 32.1 (5.9) | 0.250 |
| Added sugar intake | Per cent from total energy intake, mean (SD) | 10.9 (7.7) | 10.3 (6.3) | 0.403 |
| Education | ≤9 years | 6.7 | 5.8 | 0.004 |
| 10 – 11 years | 23.3 | 11.6 | ||
| 12 years | 25.4 | 29.1 | ||
| 13 – 17 years | 25.4 | 35.3 | ||
| ≥17 years | 19.2 | 18.2 | ||
| Household income previous year | <200 000 NOK | 8.4 | 12.7 | 0.048 |
| 200 000 – 299 000 NOK*** | 15.8 | 23.6 | ||
| 300 000 – 399 000 NOK | 19.2 | 13.1 | ||
| 400 000 – 499 000 NOK | 24.8 | 20.0 | ||
| 500 000 – 599 000 NOK | 17.9 | 15.6 | ||
| ≥600 000 NOK | 13.7 | 14.9 | ||
| Marital status | Married or co-habitant | 71.5 | 73.2 | 0.696 |
| Single | 28.5 | 26.8 | ||
| Children, number | No children | 46.3 | 30.4 | 0.002 |
| 1 child | 20.8 | 24.6 | ||
| 2 children | 25.0 | 37.0 | ||
| 3 children or more | 7.9 | 8.0 |
* n differ slightly between different variables due to missing values. ** p-value for difference between men and women. ***NOK = Norwegian krone.
Inter-correlations (Pearson's r) between independent and dependent variables by gender (N≈502). The Oslo Youth Study 1991–99.
| Men/Women | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 1) Attitude 1991 | 0.48*** | 0.20** | 0.23*** | 0.50*** | -0.05 | -0.07 | 0.12 | -0.14* | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.04 | |
| 2) Subjective norms 1991 | 0.38*** | -0.07 | 0.11 | 0.31*** | -0.11 | -0.05 | 0.04 | 0.02 | -0.09 | -0.05 | 0.08 | 0.09 | |
| 3) Perceived behavioural control 1991 | 0.13* | -0.14* | 0.17** | 0.28*** | 0.21** | -0.09 | 0.08 | -0.17** | 0.02 | 0.10 | -0.02 | -0.12 | |
| 4) Perceived social norms 1991 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.22*** | 0.11 | 0.03 | -0.13* | 0.09 | -0.02 | 0.09 | 0.03 | -0.01 | -0.13* | |
| 5) Intention 1991 | 0.47*** | 0.20* | 0.31*** | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.08 | -0.11 | -0.06 | |
| 6) Education 1999 | -0.02 | -0.18** | 0.14* | 0.14* | -0.04 | 0.21** | -0.09 | -0.14* | 0.08 | 0.20** | -0.10 | -0.05 | |
| 7) Household income 1999 | -0.11 | -0.05 | 0.08 | -0.01 | -0.09 | 0.28*** | -0.44*** | 0.16* | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.00 | -0.10 | |
| 8) Marital status 1999 | 0.04 | -0.02 | 0.03 | -0.07 | 0.02 | -0.04 | -0.53*** | -0.30*** | -0.08 | 0.00 | -0.09 | 0.01 | |
| 9) Number of children 1999 | -0.05 | -0.04 | 0.04 | 0.08 | -0.03 | -0.18** | 0.10 | -0.35*** | -0.02 | -0.04 | 0.04 | 0.10 | |
| 10) Fruit and vegetable intake 1999 | 0.05 | -0.06 | 0.27*** | 0.22*** | 0.09 | 0.15* | 0.12* | -0.18** | 0.13* | 0.20** | -0.02 | -0.14* | |
| 11) Whole grain intake 1999 | 0.08 | -0.19** | 0.16** | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.25*** | 0.04 | 0.03 | -0.11 | 0.21*** | -0.22*** | -0.22** | |
| 12) Total fat intake 1999 | 0.01 | 0.08 | -0.29*** | -0.08 | -0.03 | -0.15* | -0.11 | 0.00 | 0.05 | -0.20** | -0.26*** | -0.10 | |
| 13) Added sugar intake 1999 | 0.05 | 0.12* | -0.03 | -0.12* | 0.04 | -0.13* | -0.08 | -0.02 | 0.02 | -0.12* | -0.12* | -0.07 |
Upper half represents men, and lower half represents women. All variables are coded in ascending order except marital status that is coded 1 = married, 2 = single/divorced/widow.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Baseline (age 25) predictors of fruits and vegetable and whole grain intake at follow up (age 33 years). Multiple linear regression analyses; unstandardized (B) and standardized regression coefficients (β). The Oslo Youth Study 1991 – 1999.
| Daily fruits and vegetable intake | Daily whole grain intake | |||||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||||
| Psychosocial factors at baseline | B | β | B | β | B | β | B | β |
| Attitude | 10.43 | 0.17* | 1.07 | 0.02 | -1.51 | -0.04 | 3.84 | 0.13 |
| Subjective norm | -12.92 | -0.18* | -4.41 | -0.05 | -2.72 | -0.06 | -7.91 | -0.22** |
| Perceived behaviour control | -11.48 | -0.03 | 88.07 | 0.21** | 23.68 | 0.09 | 22.18 | 0.12 |
| Perceived social norms | 33.52 | 0.08 | 79.74 | 0.18** | 5.98 | 0.02 | 4.18 | 0.02 |
| Intention | -5.33 | -0.03 | 4.99 | 0.02 | 12.08 | 0.09 | 1.57 | 0.02 |
| R2/R2 adjusted, % | 3.7/1.6 | 10.1/8.4 | 2.1/0.0 | 7.1/5.4 | ||||
| Model 1 + Demographic factors at follow-up | ||||||||
| Attitude | 11.17 | 0.18* | 1.66 | 0.02 | -1.31 | -0.03 | 3.67 | 0.12 |
| Subjective norm | -12.51 | -0.17* | -2.46 | -0.03 | -1.56 | -0.03 | -7.41 | -0.20** |
| Perceived behaviour control | -17.02 | -0.04 | 85.70 | 0.20** | 16.62 | 0.06 | 18.88 | 0.10 |
| Perceived social norms | 36.35 | 0.09 | 66.43 | 0.15* | 2.64 | 0.01 | 2.19 | 0.01 |
| Intention | -6.54 | -0.03 | 7.36 | 0.02 | 10.89 | 0.08 | 1.55 | 0.02 |
| Education | 9.70 | 0.06 | 25.40 | 0.13* | 18.03 | 0.17* | 15.24 | 0.17* |
| Household income | 2.03 | 0.02 | -4.21 | -0.03 | 1.92 | 0.02 | 1.21 | 0.02 |
| Marital status | -27.58 | -0.06 | -73.40 | -0.15 | 9.61 | 0.03 | -1.86 | -0.01 |
| Children | -4.16 | -0.02 | 17.05 | 0.08 | -0.37 | -0.00 | -8.30 | -0.08 |
| R2/R2 adjusted, % | 4.7/0.8 | 14.2/11.2 | 5.1/1.3 | 11.8/8.7 | ||||
| Model 2 + baseline eating behaviour | ||||||||
| Attitude | 12.40 | 0.20* | 0.91 | 0.01 | -2.42 | -0.06 | 3.85 | 0.12 |
| Subjective norm | -11.06 | -0.15* | 0.01 | 0.00 | 1.02 | 0.02 | -5.76 | -0.16* |
| Perceived behaviour control | -28.44 | -0.07 | 59.38 | 0.14* | 11.60 | 0.04 | 10.72 | 0.06 |
| Perceived social norms | 19.52 | 0.05 | 52.97 | 0.12* | -10.87 | -0.04 | -6.04 | -0.03 |
| Intention | -3.04 | -0.02 | 1.16 | 0.01 | 7.21 | 0.06 | -0.79 | -0.01 |
| Education | 0.08 | 0.00 | 13.05 | 0.07 | 14.63 | 0.14* | 11.02 | 0.13* |
| Household income | -0.98 | -0.01 | -2.97 | -0.02 | -1.96 | -0.02 | 0.54 | 0.01 |
| Marital status | -37.43 | -0.09 | -56.32 | -0.12 | 17.87 | 0.06 | -1.79 | -0.01 |
| Children | -4.73 | -0.03 | 11.99 | 0.05 | 0.63 | 0.01 | -8.33 | -0.09 |
| Baseline eating behaviour† | 75.27 | 0.31** | 79.65 | 0.32** | 31.79 | 0.25*** | 30.68 | 0.31*** |
| R2/R2 adjusted, % | 13.2/9.3 | 23.1/20.1 | 10.7/6.6 | 20.2/17.1 | ||||
Marital status is coded 1 = married, 2 = single/divorced/widow, while all other variables are coded in ascending order. † The corresponding eating behaviour in 1991: fruit and vegetable score in 1991 for fruit and vegetable intake in 1999 (grams per day), whole grain score in 1991 for whole grain intake in 1999 (grams per day), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Baseline (age 25) predictors of total fat and added sugar intake at follow up (age 33 years). Multiple linear regression analyses; unstandardized (B) and standardized regression coefficients (β). The Oslo Youth Study 1991 – 1999.
| Total fat intake | Added sugar intake | |||||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||||
| Psychosocial factors at baseline | B | β | B | β | B | β | B | β |
| Attitude | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| Subjective norm | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.23 | 0.08 | 0.31 | 0.13* |
| Perceived behaviour control | 0.16 | 0.01 | -3.31 | -0.29*** | -1.29 | -0.08 | 0.72 | 0.06 |
| Perceived social norms | -0.34 | -0.03 | -0.15 | -0.01 | -2.20 | -0.13* | -1.83 | -0.14* |
| Intention | -1.24 | -0.21** | 0.14 | 0.02 | -0.78 | -0.10 | -0.16 | -0.03 |
| R2/R2 adjusted, % | 4.1/2.0 | 8.4/6.6 | 4.3/2.2 | 3.3/1.5 | ||||
| Model 1 + Demographic factors at follow-up | ||||||||
| Attitude | 0.27 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| Subjective norm | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.28 | 0.12 |
| Perceived behaviour control | 0.36 | 0.03 | -3.06 | -0.27*** | -1.31 | -0.08 | 0.98 | 0.08 |
| Perceived social norms | -0.20 | -0.02 | -0.37 | -0.03 | -2.53 | -0.15* | -1.97 | -0.15* |
| Intention | -1.23 | -0.21** | 0.05 | 0.01 | -0.83 | -0.11 | -0.18 | -0.03 |
| Education | -0.43 | -0.09 | -0.27 | -0.05 | 0.28 | 0.04 | -0.41 | -0.07 |
| Household income | -0.16 | -0.04 | -0.42 | -0.12 | -0.77 | -0.15* | -0.27 | -0.07 |
| Marital status | -1.97 | -0.15 | -0.76 | -0.06 | -0.07 | -0.00 | -0.63 | -0.04 |
| Children | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.41 | 0.04 | 0.86 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.01 |
| R2/R2 adjusted, % | 6.7/2.9 | 10.2/7.1 | 7.0/3.2 | 4.6/1.2 | ||||
| Model 2 + baseline eating behaviour | ||||||||
| Attitude | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.05 | -0.02 | -0.01 |
| Subjective norm | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.07 |
| Perceived behaviour control | 0.41 | 0.03 | -2.91 | -0.25*** | -1.45 | -0.09 | 1.24 | 0.10 |
| Perceived social norms | -0.31 | -0.03 | -0.29 | -0.02 | -2.30 | -0.14* | -1.58 | -0.12 |
| Intention | -1.16 | -0.20* | 0.09 | 0.02 | -0.23 | -0.03 | 0.15 | 0.02 |
| Education | -0.43 | -0.09 | -0.27 | -0.05 | 0.74 | 0.12 | -0.30 | -0.05 |
| Household income | -0.19 | 0.05 | -0.37 | -0.10 | -0.89 | -0.17* | -0.26 | -0.07 |
| Marital status | -2.16 | -0.17* | -0.64 | -0.05 | -0.65 | -0.04 | -0.90 | -0.06 |
| Children | -0.06 | -0.01 | 0.22 | 0.04 | 0.42 | 0.06 | 0.0 | 0.00 |
| Baseline eating behaviour† | 0.92 | 0.12 | 0.56 | 0.07 | 3.65 | 0.35*** | 2.34 | 0.26*** |
| R2/R2 adjusted, % | 8.0/3.9 | 10.7/7.1 | 17.6/13.9 | 10.6/7.1 | ||||
Marital status is coded 1 = married, 2 = single/divorced/widow, while all other variables are coded in ascending order. † The corresponding eating behaviour in 1991: fat score in 1991 for total fat intake in 1999 (per cent of energy from total fat), sugar score in 1991 for added sugar intake in 1999 (per cent of energy from added sugar), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.