| Literature DB >> 23829582 |
Rebecca L Bassett-Gunter, Ryna Levy-Milne, Patti Jean Naylor, Danielle Symons Downs, Cecilia Benoit, Darren E R Warburton, Chris M Blanchard, Ryan E Rhodes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transitioning to parenthood is a major life event that may impact parents' personal lifestyles, yet there is an absence of theory-based research examining the impact of parenthood on motives for dietary behaviour. As a result, we are unaware of the social cognitive variables that predict eating behaviour among those transitioning to parenthood. The purpose of the study was to examine eating behaviour motives across 12 months within the framework of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and compare these across groups of new parents, non-parents, and established parents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23829582 PMCID: PMC3706269 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-88
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Figure 1Participant recruitment and drop out.
Demographic characteristics at baseline
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic profile | ||||||
| Mean age | 27 | 29.07 | 31.03 | 32.98 | 32.26 | 34.22 |
| (SD) | (4.84) | (5.34) | (4.85) | (4.72) | (3.98) | (5.00) |
| % Visible minority | 7.14 | 11.36 | 10.45 | 7.81 | 6.25 | 12.5 |
| % Completed University | 68.18 | 61.36 | 83.35 | 71.21 | 85.71 | 74.29 |
| % > $75,000 Income | 5.26 | 7.32 | 6.35 | 20.31 | 15.12 | 20.59 |
| % Currently Employed | 52.27 | 71.11 | 89.71 | 89.39 | 74.29 | 82.86 |
Hierarchical regression of TPB variables predicting intentions to eat healthy
| Women (N = 144) | | | | |
| Final model | 0.41 | 0.03 | 0.11 | |
| Parent status | | | | −0.22** |
| Affective attitudes | | | | 0.38** |
| Instrumental Attitudes | | | | 0.22† |
| Subjective norms | | | | −0.12 |
| PBC | | | | 0.27* |
| Affective attitudes x parent status | | | | <0.01 |
| Instrumental attitudes x parent status | | | | −0.17 |
| Subjective norms x parent status | | | | 0.32* |
| PBC x parent status | | | | −0.14 |
| Men (N = 145) | | | | |
| Final model | 0.54 | 0.53 | < 0.01 | |
| Parent status | | | | −0.05 |
| Affective attitudes | | | | 0.55** |
| Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.09 |
| Subjective norms | | | | 0.16* |
| PBC | 0.15* |
Note. Model for male participants was adjusted for education. **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10.
Hierarchical regression of TPB variables predicting fruit &vegetable consumption for women
| Final model | 0.21 | 0.06 | <.001 | | Final model | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.68 | |
| Baseline fruit & vegetable | | | | 0.42** | 6-month fruit & vegetable | | | | 0.39** |
| Parent status | | | | −0.05 | Parent status | | | | −0.02 |
| PBC | | | | 0.07 | PBC | | | | 0.15 |
| Intentions to eat healthy | | | | 0.03 | Intentions to eat healthy | | | | 0.02 |
| Affective attitudes | | | | 0.35* | Affective attitudes | | | | 0.01 |
| Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.14 | Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.02 |
| Subjective norms | | | | −0.08 | Subjective norms | | | | −0.12 |
| Affective attitudes x parent status | −0.40* |
Note. **p < .01, *p < .05.
Hierarchical regression of TPB variables predicting fruit &vegetable consumption for men
| Final model | 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.06 | | Final model | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.05 | |
| Baseline fruit & vegetable | | | | 0.20* | 6 − month fruit & vegetable | | | | 0.38* |
| Parent status | | | | 0.05 | Parent status | | | | −0.26* |
| PBC | | | | 0.45* | PBC | | | | −0.02 |
| Intentions to eat healthy | | | | 0.15 | Intentions to eat healthy | | | | 0.09 |
| Affective attitudes | | | | −0.01 | Affective attitudes | | | | −0.21† |
| Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.25 | Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.25* |
| Subjective norms | | | | −0.19 | Subjective norms | | | | −0.05 |
| PBC x parent status | | | | −0.27 | | | | | |
| Intentions x parent status | | | | 0.05 | | | | | |
| Affective Attitudes x parent status | | | | 0.07 | | | | | |
| Instrumental attitudes x parent status | | | | 0.06 | | | | | |
| Subjective norms x parent status | 0.20 |
Note. *p < .05, †p < .10.
Hierarchical regression of TPB variables predicting fat consumption for women
| Final model | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.05 | | Final model | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.44 | |
| Baseline fat | | | | 0.19* | 6-month fat | | | | 0.38** |
| Parent status | | | | 0.12 | Parent status | | | | 0.11 |
| PBC | | | | 0.22 | PBC | | | | −0.24* |
| Intentions to eat healthy | | | | −0.11 | Intentions to Eat healthy | | | | 0.17 |
| Affective attitudes | | | | 0.07 | Affective attitudes | | | | −0.13 |
| Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.02 | Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.11 |
| Subjective norms | | | | 0.11 | Subjective norms | | | | 0.07 |
| PBC x parent status | −0.28* |
Note. **p < .01, *p < .05.
Hierarchical regression of TPB variables predicting fat consumption for men
| Final model | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.74 | | Final model | 0.16 | 0.01 | 0.66 | |
| Baseline fat | | | | 0.24** | 6-month fat | | | | 0.38** |
| Parent status | | | | 0.04 | Parent status | | | | 0.15 |
| PBC | | | | 0.27** | PBC | | | | −0.25* |
| Intentions to eat healthy | | | | 0.05 | Intentions to eat healthy | | | | 0.12 |
| Affective attitudes | | | | −0.13 | Affective attitudes | | | | −0.08 |
| Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.02 | Instrumental attitudes | | | | 0.07 |
| Subjective norms | −0.05 | Subjective norms | 0.09 |
Note. 12-Month model adjusted for participants’ education. **p < .01, *p < .05.