| Literature DB >> 30483489 |
Rachel Strom Chambers1, Summer Rosenstock1, Angie Lee1, Novalene Goklish1, Francene Larzelere1, Lauren Tingey1.
Abstract
Introduction: American Indian (AI) youth experience poor sexual health outcomes. Research indicates the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) is a robust model for understanding how sexual risk and protective behaviors are associated with condom use intention (CUI). Studies indicate the constructs of the PMT which influence CUI vary by sex and sexual experience. This analysis explores associations between PMT constructs and CUI by sex and sexual experience among AI youth who participated in the Respecting the Circle of Life (RCL) trial, a sexual and reproductive health intervention.Entities:
Keywords: HIV prevention; adolescent behavior; american indian; sexual health promotion; youth
Year: 2018 PMID: 30483489 PMCID: PMC6240587 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00318
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Subscales for assessing protection motivation theory constructs.
| Self-efficacy (lower score = higher risk) | Range 1–5: 1 = Strongly agree 5 = Strongly disagree | 0.67 | I want to wait until I'm married before I have sex. |
| Response efficacy (lower score = higher risk) | Range 1–5: 1 = Strongly disagree 5 = Strongly agree | 0.68 | If a girl says she won't have sex, a boy would say it's okay. |
| Response cost (higher score = higher risk) | Range 1–5: 1 = Strongly disagree 5 = Strongly agree | 0.61 | My friends expect me to try drugs. |
| Intrinsic reward (higher score = higher risk) | Range 1–5: 1 = Very bad 5 = Very good Range 1–5: 1 = Strongly disagree 5 = Strongly agree | 0.86 | IF FOLLOWING HAPPENED IN THE NEXT 6 MONTHS, I WOULD FEEL…: |
| Extrinsic reward (higher score = higher risk) | Range 1–5: 1 = Strongly disagree 5 = Strongly agree Range 1-5: 1 = None 5 = Most | 0.70 | It is important that my friends respect me. |
| Severity (higher score = higher risk) | Range 1–5: 1 = Strongly disagree 5 = Strongly agree | 0.32 | People who use drugs get HIV/AIDS. |
| Vulnerability (higher score = higher risk) | Range 1–5: 1 = No 2 = Probably not 3 = Don't know 4 = Maybe 5 = Yes | 0.79 | IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS I WILL: |
Values were re-coded in opposite direction.
Sex and sexual experience differences in protection motivation theoretical constructs relevant to condom use intention.
| Condom use intention, %( | 260 | 56.8%(148) | 59.6%(87) | 53.3%(61) | 0.4127 | 49.4% (101) | 81.2% (47) | < 0.0001 |
| Self-efficacy | 261 | 4.28 (0.04) | 4.47 (0.04) | 4.04 (0.08) | < 0.0001 | 4.36 (0.06) | 4.00 (0.09) | < 0.0001 |
| Response-efficacy | 261 | 3.77 (0.04) | 3.68 (0.04) | 3.89 (0.09) | 0.0341 | 3.72 (0.06) | 3.95 (0.06) | 0.0081 |
| Response-cost | 262 | 2.86 (0.04) | 2.87 (0.06) | 2.85 (0.06) | 0.8623 | 2.88 (0.04) | 2.81 (0.08) | 0.4273 |
| Severity | 262 | 3.65 (0.05) | 3.77 (0.06) | 3.49 (0.08) | 0.0075 | 3.65 (0.05) | 3.61 (0.10) | 0.6902 |
| Vulnerability | 262 | 1.66 (0.06) | 1.65 (0.07) | 1.68 (0.11) | 0.7930 | 1.56 (0.06) | 1.99 (0.10) | < 0.0001 |
| Extrinsic rewards | 263 | 3.19 (0.06) | 3.24 (0.08) | 3.12 (0.08) | 0.2793 | 3.00 (0.06) | 3.79 (0.09) | < 0.0001 |
| Intrinsic rewards | 264 | 1.65 (0.06) | 1.56 (0.08) | 1.77 (0.10) | 0.1050 | 1.60 (0.07) | 1.80 (0.09) | 0.0488 |
All models have been adjusted for self-selected peer group clusters (.
Association between condom use intention and Protection Motivation Constructs by sex.
| Self-efficacy | 1.07 (0.75–1.52) | – | 1.15 (0.79–1.67) | – |
| Response efficacy | 1.15 (0.99–1.32) | 1.16 (0.99, 1.37) | 1.45 (1.10–1.91) | 1.55 (1.17, 2.07) |
| Response cost | 0.83 (0.68–1.02) | – | 0.81 (0.57–1.14) | – |
| Severity | 1.12 (0.93–1.35) | – | 1.19 (0.96–1.49) | 1.22 (1.00, 1.48) |
| Vulnerability | 0.88 (0.71–1.11) | 0.84 (0.71, 0.99) | 1.44 (0.98–2.13) | 1.22 (1.02, 1.45) |
| Extrinsic rewards | 1.22 (1.02–1.47) | 1.21 (0.99, 1.47) | 1.32 (1.02–1.71) | 1.24 (0.99, 1.55) |
| Intrinsic rewards | 1.17 (1.08–1.27) | 1.20 (1.07, 1.34) | 0.90 (0.70–1.17) | – |
All models have been adjusted for self-selected peer group clusters (.
Association between condom use intention and Protection Motivation Constructs by sexual experience.
| Self-efficacy | 0.84 (0.67–1.06) | – | 1.27 (0.89–1.81) | – |
| Response efficacy | 1.16 (0.98–1.38) | – | 1.22 (0.99–1.49) | 1.27 (1.01, 1.59) |
| Response cost | 0.88 (0.72–1.08) | – | 0.89 (0.67–1.16) | – |
| Severity | 1.03 (0.84–1.28) | – | 1.20 (0.96–1.51) | 1.28 (1.05, 1.56) |
| Vulnerability | 1.10 (0.88–1.38) | – | 1.03 (0.82–1.29) | – |
| Extrinsic rewards | 0.84 (0.66–1.07) | – | 1.26 (1.03–1.53) | 1.24 (1.02, 1.52) |
| Intrinsic rewards | 0.77 (0.55–1.08) | – | 1.08 (0.92–1.26) | – |
All models have been adjusted for self-selected peer group clusters (.
Correlation between protection motivation theoretical constructs.
| Response-efficacy | 0.2346 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Response cost | −0.1205 | −0.0212 | – | – | – | – |
| Severity | 0.2735 | 0.1762 | 0.074 | – | – | – |
| Vulnerability | −0.4398 | −0.0949 | 0.1916 | −0.1161 | – | – |
| Extrinsic rewards | −0.0388 | 0.1300 | 0.1353 | 0.0841 | 0.1738 | – |
| Intrinsic rewards | −0.4599 | −0.0705 | 0.1016 | −0.0831 | 0.4863 | 0.0900 |
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.005.