| Literature DB >> 31854174 |
Wan-Ju Jennifer Yen1, Olabode Ayodele1, Adrienne McCarthy1.
Abstract
Truck drivers constitute a highly vulnerable population with very limited opportunities for healthy foods and healthy eating choices. This cross-sectional study assessed the utility of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in understanding and predicting healthy eating intention among Midwestern truck drivers in the United States. Participants were recruited through online trucker forums and advertisements at truck stops. Each participant completed an anonymous, web-based questionnaire that measured attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. One hundred and forty-six truck drivers responded, with the average Body Mass Index (BMI) 32.7 and working as a truck driver for 10.3 years. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis assessed the predictive value of individual TPB constructs and the model. The predictive model containing the TPB constructs explained 18% of the variance in healthy eating intention, with attitude and subjective norm making significant and unique contributions. With the variance explained, the findings minimally supported the utility of TPB in understanding and predicting healthy eating intention among the truck drivers. These findings should be interpreted in view of the study limitations; the small sample size and being a self-report study. Notwithstanding, the findings highlight the importance of attitude and subjective norms in understanding and predicting healthy eating intention among Midwestern truck drivers in the United States.Entities:
Keywords: Theory of planned behavior; eating decisions; health behaviors; truck drivers
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31854174 PMCID: PMC7310788 DOI: 10.2991/jegh.k.191029.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Epidemiol Glob Health ISSN: 2210-6006
Characteristics of the study participants
| Gender | |||
| Male | 101 | 76.5 | |
| Female | 31 | 23.5 | |
| Ethnicity | |||
| White/Caucasian | 119 | 90.2 | |
| Black/African American | 4 | 3.0 | |
| American Indian/Alaska Native | 5 | 3.8 | |
| Asian | 1 | 0.8 | |
| Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 1 | 0.8 | |
| Other | 2 | 1.5 | |
| Education level | |||
| High school degree | 36 | 27.7 | |
| Trade certificate | 18 | 13.8 | |
| Some college | 43 | 33.1 | |
| 2-Year degree | 12 | 9.2 | |
| 4-Year degree or higher | 21 | 16.2 | |
| BMI class | |||
| Underweight | 2 | 1.5 | |
| Normal | 18 | 13.8 | |
| Overweight | 43 | 33.1 | |
| Obese | 67 | 51.5 | |
| Age | 132 | 41.5 | 1.05 |
| BMI | 130 | 32.7 | 0.76 |
| Number of years working as a truck driver | 131 | 10.3 | 0.94 |
| Average number of nights on road per month | 135 | 19.5 | 0.81 |
Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s α score for the composite scores for TPB constructs
| Attitude | 8 (123) | 12 | 48 | 42.64 | 1.09 | 0.72 |
| Subjective norms | 7 (102) | 7 | 42 | 29.94 | 0.81 | 0.85 |
| Perceived behavioral control | 8 (144) | 8 | 48 | 37.03 | 0.69 | 0.82 |
Note: Not all participants provided answers to each question, leading to disparate sample sizes.
Correlation matrix between key variables
| I | 1.0 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.14 |
| Age | 1.0 | 0.05 | 0.07 | −0.06 | −0.08 | 0.03 | 0.08 | |
| BMI | 1.0 | 0.05 | 0.34 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.09 | ||
| A | 1.0 | 0.28 | 0.47 | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||
| SN | 1.0 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.09 | ||||
| PBC | 1.0 | 0.15 | 0.16 | |||||
| NN | 1.0 | 0.15 | ||||||
| Sex | 1.0 |
Significant at 0.05. I, intention; A, attitude; SN, subjective norms; PBC, perceived behavioral control; NN, number of nights spent on the road/away from home.
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting healthy eating intention (N = 94)
| BMI | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| NN | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.22 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.15 |
| A | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.30 | |||
| SN | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.27 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.27 | |||
| PBC | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.04 | ||||||
| 3.47 | 12.2 | 0.16 | |||||||
P < 0.05. SN, subjective norms; PBC, perceived behavioral control; NN, number of nights spent on the road/away from home; B, Beta; SEB, Standard Error of Beta.
Mean scores and standard error of the mean (SEM) for normative referents
| Wife/partner | 4.73 (0.14) | 113 | 1 | 6 |
| Parents | 4.24 (0.17) | 111 | 1 | 6 |
| Children | 3.82 (0.17) | 112 | 1 | 6 |
| Other family members | 4.09 (0.15) | 111 | 1 | 6 |
| Friends | 3.99 (0.15) | 115 | 1 | 6 |
| Doctor | 5.25 (0.11) | 118 | 1 | 6 |
| Employer | 4.16 (0.15) | 116 | 1 | 6 |
Note: Not all participants gave responses for each referent group.