| Literature DB >> 30256569 |
Benchapan Panithanang1,2, Wirangrong Srithongklang, Pontip Kompor, Prasit Pengsaa, Natthawut Kaewpitoon, Parichart Wakkhuwattapong, Soraya J Kaewpitoon.
Abstract
This quasi-experimental research aimed to study the effect of health behavior modification program in relation to knowledge, self-efficacy, expectation, and practice for liver fluke prevention among the risk group from Bueng Samrong sub-district, Kaeng Sanam Nang district, Nakhon Ratchasima province, Northeast Thailand. The total of 66 participants was assigned to experimental and comparison group, 33 participants in each group, 12-weeks intervene period. The experimental group was received health behavioral modification programs based on health education, self-efficacy, motivation, social support and networking. Pre-and-post-tests were measured using predesigned questionnaires. The comparative analysis was analyzed by paired sample t-test and independent sample t-test at the 0.05 level of significance. The results revealed that the experimental group had significantly greater knowledge, self-efficacy, expectation, and practice for liver fluke prevention than those in the comparison group (p < 0.05). In conclusion, this was a successful health education program for liver fluke avoidance. Participants were gained the correct knowledge and had the higher self-efficacy, expectation, and practice regrading liver fluke prevention. Therefore, it may useful for further behavior modification in the other epidemic areas. Creative Commons Attribution LicenseEntities:
Keywords: Health behavior modification program; liver fluke; rural communities; Thailand
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30256569 PMCID: PMC6249471 DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.9.2673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ISSN: 1513-7368
Figure 1Study Areas was Conducted in Bueng Sarong Sub-District, Kang Sanam Nang District, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Northeast Thailand.
Health Modification Program among the 66 Participants in Each Experimental and Comparison Groups
| Time periods | Activities | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Community participatory action with Building relationship | Activities and interested leaders |
| Week 2 | Screening risk group for liver fluke infection by using verbal screening test | Risk group for experimental and comparison groups |
| Week 3 | Collecting data before intervention by health village volunteers using predesigned questionnaires | Score level of knowledge, self-efficacy, expectation and practice |
| Week 4 | Stool collection and examination | Infected patients and treatments |
| Week 5 | Health education based station learning through one day activities learning including | Improvement of knowledge, self-efficacy, expectation and practice regarding liver fluke prevention and control |
| Week 6 | Home visiting experimental group by health village volunteers and local health officers using PDRCSUT handbook | Motivation, self-efficacy and social support regarding liver fluke prevention and control |
| Week 7 | Walking campaign by students, health village volunteers and local health officers using poster, brochures, and giving the fluke free house flag | Motivation, self-efficacy and social support regarding liver fluke prevention and control |
| Week 8 | Home visiting experimental group by health village volunteers and local health officers | Motivation, self-efficacy and social support regarding liver fluke prevention and control |
| Week 9 | Health education regarding liver fluke by health village volunteers and local health officers using village broadcast | Improvement of knowledge, and practice regarding liver fluke prevention and control |
| Week 10 | Home visiting experimental group by health village volunteers, local health officers, and researchers. Meeting and building fluke free village network | Fluke free village network for sustainable liver fluke prevention and control |
| Week 11 | Collecting data after intervention by health village volunteers using predesigned questionnaires, stool collection and examination | Score level of knowledge, self-efficacy, expectation and practice, and re-infected patients |
| Week 12 | Meeting, reflecting, and return data to communities and individualized person | After action review and their sharing the experience |
Figure 2Health Behavior Modification Programs were Intervened for Experimental Group in Bueng Sarong Sub-District, Kang Sanam Nang District, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Northeast Thailand. This activities were included the health education based station learning through one day activities learning including Station 1-6.
Demographic Characteristics Among 66 Participants in Experimental and Comparison Groups
| Demographic data | Experimental group | Comparison group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n=33) | (n=33) | |||
| No. | % | No. | % | |
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 24 | 72.73 | 18 | 54.55 |
| Male | 9 | 27.27 | 15 | 45.45 |
| Age (year) | ||||
| 30 – 39 | 2 | 6.06 | 7 | 21.21 |
| 40 – 49 | 9 | 27.27 | 5 | 15.15 |
| 50 – 59 | 15 | 45.45 | 13 | 39.39 |
| 60 – 69 | 3 | 9.09 | 7 | 21.21 |
| 70 – 79 | 1 | 3.03 | 1 | 3.03 |
| 80 – 89 | 3 | 9.09 | 0 | 0 |
| Mean, S.D. | 54.70, 12.52 | 51.12, 9.88 | ||
| Min - Max | 34, 87 | 32, 70 | ||
| Education | ||||
| Primary school | 21 | 63.64 | 26 | 78.79 |
| Junior secondary school | 8 | 24.24 | 6 | 18.18 |
| High school | 2 | 6.06 | 0 | 0 |
| Uneducated | 2 | 6.06 | 1 | 3.03 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married | 24 | 72.73 | 26 | 78.79 |
| Divorced/widowed/separated | 9 | 27.27 | 6 | 18.18 |
| Single | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3.03 |
| Occupation | ||||
| Agriculture | 23 | 69.7 | 21 | 63.64 |
| Employee | 6 | 18.18 | 9 | 27.27 |
| Housewives | 2 | 6.06 | 2 | 6.06 |
| Trader | 1 | 3.03 | 1 | 3.03 |
| Government officers | 1 | 3.03 | 0 | 0 |
| Family income (Thai Baht/month) | ||||
| < 1,000 | 3 | 9.09 | 15 | 45.45 |
| 1,000 – 5,000 | 11 | 33.33 | 17 | 51.52 |
| 6,000 – 10,000 | 11 | 33.33 | 0 | 0 |
| 10,001 – 15,000 | 3 | 9.09 | 1 | 3.03 |
| 15,001 – 20,000 | 1 | 3.03 | 0 | 0 |
| > 20,000 | 4 | 12.12 | 0 | 0 |
Past Histories Regarding Liver Flue Disease among 66 Participants in Experimental and Comparison Groups
| Past histories | Experimental group | Comparison group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n=33) | (n=33) | |||
| No. | % | No. | % | |
| Past history with liver fluke infection | ||||
| No | 30 | 90.91 | 28 | 84.85 |
| Yes | 3 | 9.09 | 5 | 15.15 |
| Past history with praziquantel used | ||||
| No | 30 | 90.91 | 28 | 84.85 |
| Yes | 3 | 9.09 | 5 | 15.15 |
| Raw cyprinoid fish consumption | ||||
| Yes | 31 | 93.94 | 30 | 90.91 |
| No | 2 | 6.06 | 3 | 9.09 |
| Frequencies of raw cyprinoid fish | ||||
| Never | 2 | 6.06 | 3 | 9.09 |
| 1 time/week | 1 | 3.03 | 1 | 3.03 |
| 4 times/week | 1 | 3.03 | 1 | 3.03 |
| 2 times/month | 5 | 15.15 | 3 | 9.09 |
| 1 time/year | 21 | 63.64 | 20 | 60.61 |
| 4 times/year | 3 | 9.09 | 5 | 15.15 |
| Cyprinoid fish species | ||||
| | 31 | 100 | 7 | 50 |
| | 28 | 90.32 | 13 | 92.85 |
| | 22 | 70.96 | 9 | 64.28 |
| | 11 | 35.48 | 2 | 14.28 |
| | 1 | 7.14 | 3 | 21.42 |
| | 1 | 7.14 | 3 | 21.42 |
| | 1 | 7.14 | 1 | 7.14 |
Compared Mean Score for Knowledge, Self-Efficacy, Expectation of Response Efficacy, and Practice Regrading Liver Fluke, within Experimental Group (n=33)
| Categories | Before Experiment | After Experiment | Mean Difference | T-test | 95%CI | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||||
| Knowledge | 15.94 | 2.71 | 19.42 | 0.61 | 3.48 | 4.23 | -0.67, -0.23 | <0.001 |
| Self-efficacy | 2.61 | 0.49 | 2.82 | 0.39 | 0.21 | 2.93 | -0.35, -0.06 | <0.05 |
| Expectation | 2.72 | 0.45 | 2.84 | 0.36 | 0.12 | 2.1 | -0.23, -0.00 | <0.05 |
| Practice | 2.21 | 0.41 | 2.52 | 0.51 | 0.31 | 3.73 | -0.46, -0.13 | <0.001 |
Compared Mean Score for Knowledge, Self-Efficacy, Expectation of Response Efficacy, and Practice Regrading Liver Fluke, between Experimental and Comparison Groups
| Categories | Experimental group (n=33) | Comparison group (n=33) | Mean Difference | T-test | 95%CI | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||||
| Knowledge | ||||||||
| Before experiment | 15.94 | 2.71 | 15.06 | 1.74 | 0.88 | 1.41 | -0.38, 2.14 | >0.05 |
| After experiment | 19.42 | 0.61 | 15.79 | 1.72 | 3.63 | 12.76 | 3.05, 4.21 | <0.001 |
| Self-efficacy | ||||||||
| Before experiment | 2.61 | 0.49 | 2.54 | 0.51 | 0.07 | 0.27 | -0.19, 0.25 | >0.05 |
| After experiment | 2.82 | 0.39 | 2.57 | 0.51 | 0.25 | 2.1 | 0.00, 0.47 | <0.05 |
| Expectation | ||||||||
| Before experiment | 2.72 | 0.45 | 2.63 | 0.48 | 0.09 | 0.46 | -0.20, 0.32 | >0.05 |
| After experiment | 2.84 | 0.36 | 2.61 | 0.49 | 0.23 | 2.26 | 0.02, 0.46 | <0.05 |
| Practice | ||||||||
| Before experiment | 2.21 | 0.41 | 2.2 | 0.48 | 0.01 | 1.15 | -0.41, 0.11 | >0.05 |
| After experiment | 2.52 | 0.51 | 2.24 | 0.43 | 0.28 | 2.05 | 0.00, 0.54 | <0.05 |