| Literature DB >> 28521760 |
Bin Cui1,2, Qiuyan Liao3, Wendy Wing Tak Lam4, Zong Ping Liu2,5, Richard Fielding4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poultry farmers are at high-risk from avian influenza A/H7N9 infection due to sustained occupational exposures to live poultry. This study examined factors associated with poultry farmers' adoption of personal protective behaviours (PPBs) based on Protection Motivation Theory (PMT).Entities:
Keywords: Behaviour; Influenza A (H7N9); Information trust; Poultry farmers; Risk perception
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28521760 PMCID: PMC5437685 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4364-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1The conceptual framework based on Protection Motivation Theory for understanding farmers’ intention to adopt protective behaviours against avian influenza A/H7N9
Fig. 2The flow chart showing the process of sampling
Respondents’ characteristics (N = 297)
| Characteristics |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 71 | 23.9% |
| Male | 226 | 76.1% |
| Age | ||
| ≦45 years | 55 | 18.5% |
| 46-55 years | 151 | 50.8% |
| > 55 years | 91 | 30.6% |
| Education | ||
| primary or below | 73 | 24.6% |
| Junior high school | 153 | 51.5% |
| Senior high school or above | 71 | 23.9% |
| Years raising poultry | ||
| ≦10 years | 129 | 43.4% |
| 10- 20 years | 123 | 41.4% |
| > 20 years | 45 | 15.2% |
Fig. 3Actual adoption of personal protective behaviours against A/H7N9 among the respondents
Comparison of model fit indices of Model I, Model II and Model III
| Nested models | χ2 (df) | Scaling correction factor | CFI | TLI | RMSEA (90% CI) | χ2 difference test ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model I | 495.03 (148) | 1.12 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.09 (0.08-0.10) | - |
| Model II | 499.87 (158) | 1.12 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.08 (0.08-0.09) |
|
| Model III | 420.69 (154) | 1.13 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.08 (0.07-0.08) |
|
Model II is nested within Model I and Model III
Compared with Model I, Model II removed the paths from gender to Perceived Self-efficacy and Perceived Response efficacy, from Age to Perceived Severity and Perceived Response efficacy, from Education to Perceived Severity, Perceived Vulnerability and Perceived Self-efficacy, and from years of raising poultry to Perceived Severity, Perceived Vulnerability and Perceived Response efficacy
Compared with Model II, Mode III added covariance for the relationships of Perceived Vulnerability with Perceived Self-efficacy and Perceived Response efficacy, and the relationships of Perceived Self-efficacy with Perceived Severity and Perceived Response efficacy
Fig. 4The results of structural equation model for understanding determinants on intention to adopt protective behaviours against A/H7N9 based on Protection Motivation Theory. a p<,0.05, b p < 0.01, c p < 0.001. The numbers on the paths are standardized path coefficient; the dotted line indicates the effect is not statistically significant
The direct effects of risk perceptions and indirect effects of demographics on Intention to adopt personal protective behaviours via risk perceptions
| Effects by exogenous variables | Point estimate (SE) | Bootstrapping (95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||
| Direct effects | |||
| Perceived Severity→Intention | -0.03 (0.03) | -0.08 | 0.03 |
| Perceived Vulnerability→Intention | 0.11 (0.04)b | 0.04 | 0.18 |
| Perceived Self-efficacy→Intention | 0.40 (0.09)c | 0.23 | 0.58 |
| Perceived Response Efficacy→Intention | 0.54 (0.04)c | 0.47 | 0.63 |
| Indirect effects | |||
| Gender→Intention | |||
| Via Perceived Severity | 0.02 (0.02) | -0.02 | 0.06 |
| Via Perceived Vulnerability | -0.05a | -0.11 | −0.01 |
| Total | -0.03 (0.03) | -0.10 | 0.02 |
| Age→Intention | |||
| Via Perceived Vulnerability | 0.04 (0.02)a | 0.01 | 0.09 |
| Via Perceived Self-efficacy | 0.07 (0.02)b | 0.03 | 0.12 |
| Total | 0.11 (0.03)c | 0.05 | 0.18 |
| Education→Intention | |||
| Via Perceived Response Efficacy | 0.35 (0.04)c | 0.27 | 0.45 |
| Years of raising→Intention | |||
| Via Perceived Response Efficacy | -0.08 (0.04) | -0.17 | -0.00 |
a p < 0.05, b p < 0.01, c p < 0.001; SE: Standard Error
Trust in formal and informal information by demographic characteristics
| Demographic characteristics | Trust in formal information | Trust in informal information | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust (mostly/completely trustworthy) |
| Trust (mostly/completely trustworthy) |
| |
| Gender | ||||
| Female | (69/71) 97.2% | 0.011 | (4/71) 5.6% | 0.015 |
| Male | (226/226)100% | (39/226) 17.3% | ||
| Age | ||||
| ≦45 years | (55/55) 100% | 0.804 | (4/55) 7.3% | 0.241 |
| 46-55 years | (149/151) 98.7% | (24/151) 15.9% | ||
| ≧56 years | (91/91) 100% | (15/91) 16.5% | ||
| Education | ||||
| Primary or below | (71/73) 97.3% | 0.043 | (7/73) 9.6% | <0.001 |
| Junior high school | (153/153) 100% | (14/153) 9.2% | ||
| Senior high school or above | (71/71) 100% | (22/71) 31.0% | ||
| Years raising poultry | ||||
| ≦10 years | (127/129) 98.4% | 0.153 | (12/129) 9.3% | 0.080 |
| ≦20 years | (123/123) 100% | (22/123) 17.9% | ||
| ≧21 years | (45/45) 100% | (9/45) 20.0% | ||
aFisher Exact test
bPearson chi-square
The direct and indirect effects of trust in informal information on Intention to adopt personal protective behaviours based on the simple mediation model
| Point estimate (SE) | Bootstrapping (95%CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||
| Direct effect | -0.04 (0.13) | -0.28 | 0.24 |
| Indirect effect | |||
| Via perceived Severity | -0.01 (0.01) | -0.04 | 0.01 |
| Via perceived Susceptibility | 0.01 (0.02) | -0.02 | 0.07 |
| Via perceived Self-efficacy | -0.07 (0.04) | -0.17 | -0.00 |
| Via perceived Response Efficacy | 0.57 (0.10)c | 0.39 | 0.77 |
| Total indirect effect | 0.50 (0.09)c | 0.33 | 0.69 |
| Total effect | 0.46 (0.16)b | 0.15 | 0.75 |
b p<0.01, c p<0.001
The estimated conditional indirect effects of trust in informal information on intention to adopt personal protective behaviours against influenza A/H7N9 via risk perceptions
| Moderator | Level | Conditional indirect effects of TII on Intention (Bootstrapping 95% CI) via: | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Severity | Perceived Vulnerability | Perceived Self-efficacy | Perceived Response efficacy | ||
| Gender | Female | 0.04 (-0.03, 0.13) | -0.16 (-0.39, 0.10) | -0.24 (-0.52, -0.06)a | 0.30 (0.16-0.49)b |
| Male | -0.02 (-0.08, 0.00) | 0.05 (0.00, 0.15) | -0.05 (-0.17, 0.00) | 0.56 (0.33, 0.80)c | |
| Age group (years) | ≦55 | -0.01 (-0.04, 0.01) | 0.02 (-0.02, 0.07) |
|
|
| >55 | -0.02 (-0.14, 0.04) | -0.03 (-0.21, 0.11) | 0.05 (-0.03, 0.19) | 0.19 (-0.10, 0.44) | |
| Education | Junior middle or below | -0.02 (-0.08, 0.01) | -0.01 (-0.09, 0.06) | 0.08 (-0.01, 0.26) | 0.25 (0.01, 0.41)a |
| Senior high or above | -0.00 (-0.07, 0.05) | 0.08 (0.01, 0.29) | 0.04 (-0.16, 0.27) | 0.54 (0.23, 0.91)b | |
a p<0.05, b p<0.01, c p<0.001; SE: Standard Error
The bold values indicate that effects were significant different across stratum of a moderator