| Literature DB >> 26614522 |
Elizabeth McDonald1, Teresa Cunningham2, Nicola Slavin3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The No Germs on Me (NGoM) Social Marketing Campaign to promote handwashing with soap to reduce high rates of infection among children living in remote Australian Aboriginal communities has been ongoing since 2007. Recently three new television commercials were developed as an extension of the NGoM program. This paper reports on the mass media component of this program, trialling an evaluation design informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26614522 PMCID: PMC4662811 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-2503-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Overview of constructs of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (1991)
Fig. 2Algorithm utilising principles of Social Ecological Theory [32] and Theory of Planned Behaviour [28] showing the physical, social and cultural environmental factors important so carers’ in remote Australian Aboriginal communities are able to teach and assist children to wash their hands with soap and have clean faces
Characteristics of survey participants' pre and post intervention from three regions (n 865)
| Region | Gender | Agea | Relationship to children living in the houseb | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | >16- ≤ 25 yrs | 26- ≤ 55 yrs | ≥56 yrs | Mother | Father | G'mother | Auntie | Otherc | |
| Top End Region | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 128 (79 %) | 40 (25 %) | 98 (60 %) | 25 (15 %) | 71 (43 %) | 16 (10 %) | 40 (24 %) | 14 (9 %) | 21 (13 %) |
| Round 2 ( | 124 (75 %) | 52 (32 %) | 98 (59 %) | 15 (9 %) | 82 (49 %) | 19 (12 %) | 18 (11 %) | 13 (8 %) | 28 (17 %) |
| Central Australia Region | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 120 (74 %) | 35 (22 %) | 105 (65 %) | 20 (12 %) | 48 (30 %) | 20 (12 %) | 49 (30 %) | 13 (8 %) | 31 (19 %) |
| Round 2 ( | 116 (71 %) | 50 (31 %) | 86 (53 %) | 26 (15 %) | 55 (35 %) | 15 (9 %) | 38 (23 %) | 15 (9 %) | 38 (23 %) |
| Kimberley Region | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 85 (68 %) | 46 (37 %) | 68 (54 %) | 10 (8 %) | 36 (29 %) | 15 (12 %) | 21 (17 %) | 12 (10 %) | 41 (32 %) |
| Round 2 ( | 60 (69 %) | 20 (23 %) | 51 (59 %) | 13 (15 %) | 30 (35 %) | 10 (11 %) | 16 (18 %) | 9 (10 %) | 22 (25 %) |
| Total | 633(73 %) | 243(28 %) | 506(58 %) | 109(13 %) | 322(37 %) | 95(11 %) | 182(21 %) | 76(9 %) | 181(21 %) |
aMissing data: Central Australia Round 1–2 (1 %) and Round 2–1 (1 %); Kimberley Round 1–1 (1 %) and Round 2–3 (3 %);
bMissing data: Top End Round 1–1 (<1 %) & Round 2–5 (3 %); Central Australia Round 1–1 (<1 %) and Round 2–2 (1 %);
cIncludes Grandfather, brother, sister, uncle, foster-mother, and other not specified
Total study population (n 865) comparison by community and survey rounds about functionality of taps and availability of soap at all sinks and toilet paper or tissues in the house where they live at the time of the survey
| Today all taps work | Today soap available at all sinks | Today toilet paper or tissues available | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Not sure | Missing data | Yes | Not sure | Missing data | Yes | Not sure | Missing data | |
| Community 1 | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 73 (92 %) | 1(1 %) | 1(1 %) | 73 (92 %) | 2 (2 %) | 0 | 72 (90 %) | 3 (4 %) | 0 |
| Round 2 ( | 74 (90 %) | 0 | 0 | 80 (98 %) | 0 | 1 (1 %) | 78 (95 %) | 0 | 1 (1 %) |
| Community 2 | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 72 (87 %) | 0 | 0 | 76 (92 %) | 0 | 1 (1 %) | 77 (93 %) | 1 (1 %) | 0 |
| Round 2 ( | 71 (86 %) | 0 | 0 | 65 (78 %) | 0 | 0 | 75 (91 %) | 0 | 1 (1 %) |
| Community 3 | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 73 (90 %) | 0 | 1(1 %) | 67 (83 %) | 0 | 1 (1 %) | 70 (86 %) | 0 | 0 |
| Round 2 ( | 81 (96 %) | 0 | 1(1 %) | 69 (82 %) | 0 | 0 | 70 (83 %) | 0 | 0 |
| Community 4 | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 79 (97 %) | 0 | 0 | 68 (84 %) | 0 | 0 | 76 (94 %) | 0 | 0 |
| Round 2 ( | 68 (86 %) | 0 | 1(1 %) | 68 (86 %) | 0 | 0 | 72 (91 %) | 0 | 0 |
| Community 5 | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 75 (94 %) | 0 | 0 | 70 (88 %) | 0 | 2 (2 %) | 77 (96 %) | 0 | 0 |
| Round 2 ( | 53 (91 %) | 0 | 0 | 50 (86 %) | 0 | 54 (93 %) | 0 | 0 | |
| Community 6 | |||||||||
| Round 1 ( | 43 (96 %) | 0 | 0 | 40 (89 %) | 0 | 0 | 44 (98 %) | 0 | 0 |
| Round 2 ( | 29 (100 %) | 0 | 0 | 29 (100 %) | 0 | 0 | 29 (100 %) | 0 | 0 |
| TOTAL ( | 791 (91 %) | 1 (<1 %) | 4 (<1 %) | 755 (87 %) | 2 (<1 %) | 5 (<1 %) | 794 (92 %) | 4 (<1 %) | 2 (<1 %) |
The number of participants who reported having a television that works in their home and who had seen the new commercials
| Working television in the house | New commercials seen | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Missing data | Yes | No | Missing data | |
| Top end | ||||||
| Community 1 (n 82) | 68 (83 %) | 12 (15 %) | 2 (2 %) | 67 (82 % | 13 (16 %) | 2 (2 %) |
| Community 2 (n 83) | 41 (49 %) | 42 (51 %) | - | 46 (56 %) | 35 (42 %) | 2 (2 %) |
| Central Australia | ||||||
| Community 3 (n 84) | 75 (89 %) | 9 (11 %) | - | 80 (95 %) | 4 (5 %) | - |
| Community 4 (n 79) | 61 (77 %) | 16 (20 %) | 2 (3 %) | 53 (67 %) | 23 (29 %) | 3 (4 %) |
| Kimberley | ||||||
| Community 5 (n 58) | 44 (76 %) | 14 (24 %) | - | 45 (78 %) | 13 (22 %) | - |
| Community 6 (n 29) | 29 (100 %) | - | - | 28 (97 %) | 1 (3 %) | |
| Total | 318 (77 %) | 93 (22 %) | 4 (1 %) | 319 (77 %) | 89 (22 %) | 7 (2 %) |
Results of individual and combined regional level Paired Sample t-test (pre and post intervention) – Theory of Planned Behaviour constructs shown to have good internal reliability
| Number of participants | Meana | Standard deviation | Correlation | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude overall | |||||
| Top End Region | |||||
| Pre | 28 | 6.20 | 1.75 | −0.111 | 0.573 |
| Post | 28 | 6.54 | 0.60 | ||
| Central Australian Region | |||||
| Pre | 45 | 6.60 | 1.12 | 0.212 | 0.163 |
| Post | 45 | 6.70 | 0.72 | ||
| Kimberley Region | |||||
| Pre | 26 | 6.60 | 0.91 | 0.762 | 0.000** |
| Post | 26 | 6.75 | 0.68 | ||
| All communities | |||||
| Pre | 99 | 6.49 | 1.29 | 0.205 | 0.041** |
| Post | 99 | 6.67 | 0.68 | ||
| Perceived behavioural control | |||||
| Top end region | |||||
| Pre | 28 | 5.31 | 1.67 | 0.038 | 0.847 |
| Post | 28 | 4.95 | 1.46 | ||
| Central Australian Region | |||||
| Pre | 45 | 6.40 | 0.95 | −0.121 | 0.429 |
| Post | 45 | 5.89 | 1.87 | ||
| Kimberley Region | |||||
| Pre | 26 | 5.42 | 1.88 | 0.324 | 0.106 |
| Post | 26 | 5.47 | 1.97 | ||
| All communities | |||||
| Pre | 99 | 5.83 | 1.53 | 0.151 | 0.136 |
| Post | 99 | 5.51 | 1.82 | ||
| Generalised intention | |||||
| Top End Region | |||||
| Pre | 28 | 5.15 | 2.26 | −0.183 | 0.351 |
| Post | 28 | 5.10 | 2.01 | ||
| Central Australian Region | |||||
| Pre | 45 | 6.29 | 1.22 | −0.132 | 0.388 |
| Post | 45 | 6.06 | 1.89 | ||
| Kimberley Region | |||||
| Pre | 26 | 5.80 | 2.01 | 0.324 | 0.106 |
| Post | 26 | 6.23 | 1.68 | ||
| All communities | |||||
| Pre | 99 | 5.84 | 1.82 | .030 | 0.765 |
| Post | 99 | 5.83 | 1.91 | ||
aConstruct scale score range 1 – 7 **Significance at p = <0.05 level
Results of Independent Sample t-test – Theory of Planned Behaviour constructs shown to have satisfactory-gooda internal reliability
| Theory of planned behaviour - construct | Pre Survey Meanb (SD) | Post Survey Meanb (SD) | Sig (2-tailed)*** | 95 % confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| Community 1 (Top End Region) | |||||
| Attitude overall | 6.0 | 6.6 | .006 | −1.02 | −0.18 |
| Cronbach alpha pre 0.84 | (1.3) | (1.2) | |||
| Cronbach alpha post 0.53 | |||||
| Perceived behavioural control | 4.6 | 5.7 | .001 | −1.74 | −0.43 |
| Cronbach alpha pre 0.53 | (2.2) | (1.7) | |||
| Cronbach alpha post 0.70 | |||||
| Community 4 (Kimberley Region) | |||||
| Perceived behavioural control | 6.2 | 5.3 | .002 | 0.34 | 1.43 |
| Cronbach alpha pre 0.53 | (1.3) | (1.9) | |||
| Cronbach alpha post 0.70 | |||||
aCronbach alpha satisfactory at 0.60 level bConstruct scale score range 1–7. ***Significance at p = <0.05 level