| Literature DB >> 25076670 |
A Didarloo, D Shojaeizadeh, R Gharaaghaji Asl, S Niknami, A Khorami.
Abstract
The study evaluated the efficacy of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), along with self-efficacy to predict dietary behaviour in a group of Iranian women with type 2 diabetes. A sample of 352 diabetic women referred to Khoy Diabetes Clinic, Iran, were selected and given a self-administered survey to assess eating behaviour, using the extended TRA constructs. Bivariate correlations and Enter regression analyses of the extended TRA model were performed with SPSS software. Overall, the proposed model explained 31.6% of variance of behavioural intention and 21.5% of variance of dietary behaviour. Among the model constructs, self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of intentions and dietary practice. In addition to the model variables, visit intervals of patients and source of obtaining information about diabetes from sociodemographic factors were also associated with dietary behaviours of the diabetics. This research has highlighted the relative importance of the extended TRA constructs upon behavioural intention and subsequent behaviour. Therefore, use of the present research model in designing educational interventions to increase adherence to dietary behaviours among diabetic patients was recommended and emphasized.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25076670 PMCID: PMC4216969
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Health Popul Nutr ISSN: 1606-0997 Impact factor: 2.000
Correlations among the extended TRA model constructs (N=352)
| Construct | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dietary behaviour | 1 | ||||
| Intention | 0.323 | 1 | |||
| Attitude | 0.253 | 0.412 | 1 | ||
| Subjective norm | 0.213 | 0.335 | 0.294 | 1 | |
| Self-efficacy | 0.375 | 0.500 | 0.461 | 0.426 | 1 |
**Correlation is significant at p=0.01 level (2-tailed)
Enter multiple linear regression analyses of behavioural intention (N=352)
| Parameter | Standardized coefficient (beta) | T value | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | |||
| Sociodemographics | |||
| Age | -0.071 | -1.292 | 0.197 |
| Education | 0.091 | 1.481 | 0.139 |
| Job | −0.039 | −0.726 | 0.469 |
| Marital status | 0.121 | 2.306 | 0.022 |
| Income | 0.099 | 1.845 | 0.066 |
| Duration of disease | −0.096 | −1.805 | 0.072 |
| Treatment type | 0.054 | 1.018 | 0.309 |
| Visit interval | −0.133 | −2.498 | 0.013 |
| Participation in educational sessions | −0.061 | −1.155 | 0.249 |
| Source of obtaining information | 0.072 | 1.370 | 0.172 |
| BMI | −0.018 | −0.337 | 0.736 |
| Knowledge of patients | 0.080 | 1.353 | 0.177 |
| Model 2 | |||
| Sociodemographics and the model constructs | |||
| Marital | 0.053 | 1.177 | 0.240 |
| Visit interval | −0.081 | −1.823 | 0.069 |
| Subjective norm | 0.128 | 2.572 | 0.011 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.340 | 6.353 | 0.000 |
| Attitude | 0.211 | 4.157 | 0.000 |
*p<0.05;
**p<0.01
Enter multiple linear regression analyses of dietary behaviour (N=352)
| Parameter | Standardized coefficient (beta) | T value | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | |||
| Sociodemographics | |||
| Age | −0.048 | −0.879 | 0.380 |
| Education | 0.053 | 0.870 | 0.385 |
| Job | 0.002 | 0.038 | 0.970 |
| Marital status | 0.125 | 2.403 | 0.017 |
| Income | −0.016 | −0.300 | 0.764 |
| Duration of disease | −0.047 | −0.891 | 0.373 |
| Treatment type | 0.003 | 0.059 | 0.953 |
| Visit interval | −0.214 | −4.054 | 0.000 |
| Participation in educational sessions | −0.084 | −1.609 | 0.109 |
| Source of obtaining information | 0.163 | 3.111 | 0.002 |
| BMI | 0.004 | 0.075 | 0.940 |
| Knowledge of patients | 0.100 | 1.711 | 0.088 |
| Model 2 | |||
| Sociodemographics and the model constructs | |||
| Visit interval | −0.176 | −3.660 | 0.000 |
| Source of obtaining information | 0.145 | 3.020 | 0.003 |
| Subjective norm | 0.049 | 0.918 | 0.359 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.243 | 4.007 | 0.000 |
| Attitude | 0.062 | 1.110 | 0.268 |
| Intention | 0.132 | 2.298 | 0.022 |
*p<0.05;
**p<0.01