| Literature DB >> 29731945 |
Mohammad Ali Morowatisharifabad1, Mahdi Abdolkarimi1, Mohammad Asadpour2, Mahmood Sheikh Fathollahi3, Parisa Balaee4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Theory-based education tailored to target behaviour and group can be effective in promoting physical activity. AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive power of Protection Motivation Theory on intent and behaviour of Physical Activity in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetes; Physical Activity; Protection Motivation Theory
Year: 2018 PMID: 29731945 PMCID: PMC5927508 DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Access Maced J Med Sci ISSN: 1857-9655
Characteristics and level of physical activity in diabetic patients
| Variables | N (%) | Inactive N (%) | Minimally active N (%) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 190 (76) | 16 (26.7) | 44 (73.3) | P < 0.001 |
| Sex | Female | 60 (24) | 101 (53.2) | 89 (46.8) | |
| Age | 25-40 | 15 (6%) | 6 (40.0) | 9 (60.0) | |
| 40-50 | 69 (27.6) | 27 (39.1) | 42 (60.9) | ||
| 50-60 | 138 (55.2) | 68 (49.3) | 70 (60.9) | P = 0.327 | |
| 60-65 | 28(11.2%) | 16 (57.1) | 12 (42.9) | ||
| Education | Elementary | 78 (31.2) | 56 (71.8) | 22 (28.2) | |
| Middle school | 125 (50) | 50 (40.0) | 75 (60.0) | P < 0.001 | |
| Diploma and Postgraduate | 45 (18.8) | 11 (23.4) | 36 (76.6) | ||
| Income | Weak | 69 (37.6) | 52 (75.4) | 17 (24.6) | P < 0.001 |
| Moderate | 173 (66.9) | 63 (36.4) | 110 (63.9) | ||
| Good | 8 (3.2) | 6 (75%) | 2 (25) | ||
| Diabet history | 1-3 year | 208 (52) | 27 (23.1) | 25 (18.8) | P = 0.512 |
| 3-5 year | 92 (36.8) | 39 (33.3) | 53 (39.8) | ||
| Above 5 year | 106 (42.4) | 51 (43.6) | 55 (41.4) | ||
| BMI | Below 18.5 | 3 (1.3) | 1 (0.9) | 2 (1.6) | |
| 18.5 – 24.9 | 66 (26.4) | 28 (23.9) | 38 (29.5) | ||
| 25.0 – 29.9 | 116 (46.4) | 54 (46.2) | 62 (48.1) | P = 0.41 | |
| 30.0 and Above | 61 (24.6) | 34 (29.1) | (20.9) |
Significant p-value.
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of PMT construct in diabetic patients
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Vulnerability | -- | ||||||||
| 2. Severity | 0.283 | -- | |||||||
| 3. Self- Efficacy | 0.076 | 0.062 | -- | ||||||
| 4. Response Efficacy | 0.136 | 0.134 | 0.549 | -- | |||||
| 5. Perceived Cost | -0.121 | -0.053 | -0.503 | -0.435 | -- | . | |||
| 6. Reward | -0.198 | -0.186 | -0.629 | -0.444 | 0.440 | -- | |||
| 7. Coping Appraizal | 0.127 | 0.101 | 0.878 | 0.836 | -0.709 | -0.630 | -- | ||
| 8. Threat Appraizal | 0.823** | 0.639** | 0.325 | 0.317 | -0.271 | -0.584 | o.373 | -- | |
| 9. Protection Motivation | 0.171 | 0.149 | 0.716 | 0.520 | -0.576 | -0.567 | 0.741 | 0.400 | -- |
| Mean | 20.2 | 16.9 | 20 | 21.79 | 9.02 | 10.18 | 32.80 | 26.88 | 10.98 |
| SD | 4.05 | 2.51 | 3.41 | 3.05 | 1.82 | 2.42 | 6.87 | 6.36 | 1.96 |
p < .05.
p < 0.01.
PMT Predictors of Physical Activity Intention in Diabetic Patients
| PMT Constructs | Physical activity intention (P.M) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model l | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Vulnerability | 0.058 | 0.05 | |
| Severity | 0.074 | 0.072 | |
| Self- Efficacy | 0.467 | 0.465 | |
| Response Efficacy | 0.090 | 0.85 | |
| Perceived Cost | -0.247 | -0.249 | |
| Reward | -0.099 | -0.112 | |
| Coping Appraisal | 0.68 | ||
| Threat Appraisal | 0.14 | ||
| SEX | -0.37 | ||
| R2 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.60 |
Model 1 includes the 6 PMT construct scores; Model 2 includes the 2 PMT pathway scores; Model 3 Adjusted for sex;
*p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
PMT predictors of physical activity level in diabetic patients
| Variables | Model l | Model 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | SE | Unadjusted OR | P value | B | SE | Adjusted OR | P value | |
| Vulnerability | 0.081 | o.068 | 1.08 | 0.232 | 0.081 | 0.076 | 1.08 | 0.287 |
| Severity | -0.082 | 0.092 | .92 | 0.368 | -0.073 | 0.106 | 0.930 | 0.492 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.382 | 0.105 | 1.46 | 0.000*** | 0.434 | 0.119 | 1.54 | 0.000*** |
| Response efficacy | 0.052 | 0.083 | 1.05 | 0.532 | 0.054 | 0.096 | 1.05 | 0.578 |
| Cost | -0.040 | 0.139 | .96 | 0.774 | 0.007 | 0.147 | 1.00 | 0.965 |
| Rewards | -0.092 | 0.113 | .91 | 0.412 | 0.064 | 0.129 | 1.06 | 0.619 |
| Protection Motivation | 0.912 | 0.243 | 2.49 | 0.000*** | 1.22 | 0.294 | 3.39 | 0.000*** |
| SEX | -1.99 | 0.574 | 0.136 | 0.000*** | ||||
| 2LL | 172.15 | 147.67 | ||||||
| Nagelkerkes R square | 66% 72% | |||||||
| Hosmer and Lemeshow Test P = 0.25 | P = 0.51 | |||||||
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.