| Literature DB >> 32345286 |
Yeshalem Mulugeta Demilew1, Getu Degu Alene2, Tefera Belachew3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undernutrition during pregnancy affects birth outcomes adversely. In Ethiopia, despite nutrition counseling on the maternal diet being given by the health workers during pregnancy, maternal undernutrition is still high in the country. Hence, this study aimed to assess the effect of guided counseling using the health belief model and the theory of planned behavior on the nutritional status of pregnant women.Entities:
Keywords: Guided counseling; Intervention; Nutritional status; Pregnant women
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32345286 PMCID: PMC7189500 DOI: 10.1186/s12937-020-00536-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 3.271
Fig. 1This figure shows the flow of the study participants through the trial according to the criteria recommended in the CONSORT guideline
Socio-demographic characteristics of pregnant women in West Gojjam Zone
| Variables | Intervention group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency (%) | Frequency (%) | ||
| 11 | 11 | ||
| < 20 | 25(8.0) | 16(4.8) | |
| 20–24 | 53(16.9) | 74(22.3) | |
| 25–29 | 103(32.9) | 87(26.2) | 0.085 |
| 30–34 | 74(23.7) | 84(25.3) | |
| > =35 | 58(18.5) | 71(21.4) | |
| Orthodox | 311(99.4) | 330(99.4) | |
| Muslim | 2(0.6) | 2(0.6) | 0.953 |
| No formal education | 260(83.1) | 262(78.9) | |
| Formal education | 53(16.9) | 70(21.1) | 0.180 |
| Housewife | 149(47.6) | 183(55.1) | |
| Farmer | 164(52.4) | 149(44.9) | 0.060 |
| Married | 308(98.4) | 331(99.7) | |
| Unmarried/ Divorced | 5(1.6) | 1(0.3) | 0.087 |
| No formal education | 238(77.3) | 244(73.7) | |
| Primary education | 50(16.2) | 63(19.0) | 0.575 |
| Secondary and above education | 20(6.5) | 24(7.3) | |
| Poorest | 56(17.9) | 60(18.0) | |
| Poor | 72(23.0) | 67(20.2) | |
| Medium | 65(20.8) | 62(18.7) | 0.485 |
| Rich | 56(17.9) | 78(23.5) | |
| Richest | 64(20.4) | 65(19.6) | |
| < 5 | 215(68.7) | 240(72.3) | |
| | 98(31.3) | 92(27.7) | 0.316 |
IG intervention group, CG control group
Comparison of the health belief model and the theory of planned behavior constructs score within and between the intervention and control groups among pregnant women in West Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia
| HBM constructs | Study period | HBM & TPB constructs score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | Control group | |||
| Perceived susceptibility | Baseline | 3.6(±1.9) | 3.9(±1.7) | 0.051 |
| Endline | 4.9(±1.7) | 3.2(±1.8) | < 0.001 | |
| P | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| Perceived severity | Baseline | 3.9(±1.5) | 4.1(±1.4) | 0.097 |
| Endline | 4.2(±1.3) | 3.4(±1.5) | < 0.001 | |
| P | 0.007 | < 0.001 | ||
| Perceived benefits | Baseline | 2.9(±1.7) | 3.1(±1.7) | 0.283 |
| Endline | 4.3(±1.2) | 2.8(±1.6) | < 0.001 | |
| P | < 0.001 | < 0.005 | ||
| Perceived barriers | Baseline | 1.1(±1.1) | 0.98 (±1.1) | 0.127 |
| Endline | 1.3(±1.1) | 1.2(±1.0) | 0.131 | |
| P | 0.026 | 0.014 | ||
| Intention | Baseline | 19.4(±4.1) | 19.7(±3.7) | 0.200 |
| Endline | 22.2 (±3.2) | 18.8(±4.1) | < 0.001 | |
| P | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| Attitude | Baseline | 62.7(±8.5) | 63.8(±7.7) | 0.074 |
| Endline | 71.3 (±6.1) | 61.4(±8.2) | < 0.001 | |
| P | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| Behavioral control | Baseline | 8.8(±2.5) | 8.7(±2.4) | 0.850 |
| Endline | 10.6(±2.4) | 8.4(±2.6) | < 0.001 | |
| P | < 0.001 | 0.015 | ||
| Subjective norms | Baseline | 8.9(±2.8) | 9.1 (±2.8) | 0.391 |
| Endline | 10.1 (±2.7) | 8.4(±2.7) | < 0.001 | |
| P | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
HBM Health Belief Model, TPB Theory of planned behavior, P P-value
Correlation of the health belief model and the theory of planned behavior constructs with knowledge, dietary practice and MUAC of pregnant women in West Gojjam Zones
| Intervention | Behavioral control | Subjective norms | Perceived severity | Perceived benefit | perceived barrier | Perceived susceptibility | Intention | Attitude | Knowledge | Dietary practice | MUAC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | 1 | |||||||||||
| Behavioral control | .389** | 1 | ||||||||||
| .000 | ||||||||||||
| Subjective norms | .312** | .700** | 1 | |||||||||
| .000 | .000 | |||||||||||
| Perceived severity | .274** | .480** | .442** | 1 | ||||||||
| .000 | .000 | .000 | ||||||||||
| Perceived benefit | .470** | .565** | .542** | .611** | 1 | |||||||
| .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |||||||||
| Perceived barrier | .059 | .003 | .006 | .050 | .063 | 1 | ||||||
| .129 | .937 | .879 | .205 | .109 | ||||||||
| Perceived susceptibility | .440** | .601** | .568** | .682** | .822** | .039 | 1 | |||||
| .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .324 | |||||||
| Intention | .421** | .711** | .644** | .526** | .629** | −.014 | .658** | 1 | ||||
| .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .722 | .000 | ||||||
| Attitude | .543** | .586** | .532** | .467** | .672** | −.032 | .672** | .667** | 1 | |||
| .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .416 | .000 | .000 | |||||
| Knowledge | .522** | .458** | .466** | .412** | .572** | .022 | .524** | .558** | .679** | 1 | ||
| .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .582 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||||
| Dietary practice | .307** | .296** | .272** | .221** | .263** | −.073 | .312** | .314** | .328** | .397** | 1 | |
| .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .060 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |||
| MUAC | .168** | .119** | .144** | .130** | .167** | .037 | .213** | .137** | .193** | .273** | .198** | 1 |
| .000 | .002 | .000 | .001 | .000 | .345 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Differences between baseline and endline measurements of MUAC and difference of the differences between the intervention and control groups
| Intervention | Control | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Endline | Difference (EL-BL) | Baseline | Endline | Difference (EL-BL) | Difference of difference | ||
| Variable | Mean(±SD) | Mean(±SD) | Mean(±SD) | Mean(±SD) | Mean(±SD) | Mean(±SD) | Mean(±SE) | |
| MUAC | 23.12(±2.0) | 23.47(±1.6) | 0.36(±1.1) | 23.28(±1.8) | 23.02(±1.9) | −0.25(±1.2) | 0.61(±0.9) | < 0.001 |
BL Baseline, EL Endline, SD standard deviation, SE standard error
Linear mixed predicting MUAC of pregnant women in West Gojjam Zone
| Fixed effect | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Estimate (SE) | 95% CI | Estimate (SE) | 95% CI | Estimate(SE) | 95% CI |
| Intercept | 23.225 (0.069) | (23.08,23.36) | 23.259 (0.127) | (23.01,23.51) | 22.781 (0.399) | (21.99,23.56) |
| Baseline MUAC (IG) | −0.163 (0.153) | (−0.46,0.13) | −0.116 (0.153) | (−0.41,0.18) | ||
| Endline MUAC (CG) | −0.255 (0.063) | (−0.37,-0.13) | (−0.37,-0.13) | |||
| The intervention effect | (0.43,0.79) | (0.43,0.79) | ||||
| Food secure | 0.032 (0.086) | (−0.13, 0.19) | 0.027 (0.085) | (−0.12, 0.17) | ||
| Age | 0.011 (0.017) | (−0.02,0.04) | ||||
| Family size | −0.013 (0.055) | (−0.12,0.09) | ||||
| Have formal education | 0.157 (0.191) | (−0.22,0.53) | ||||
| Use latrine | 0.322 (0.137) | (0.05,0.59) | ||||
| Drink protected water | 0.065 (0.148) | (−0.22,0.35) | ||||
| Level two variance | 2.77(0.17) | 1.69(0.17) | 1.28 (0.69) | |||
| ICC | ||||||
| AIC | ||||||
| Number of parameters | ||||||
SE Standard error, CI Confidence interval, IG Intervention group, CG Control group