| Literature DB >> 32977684 |
Trias Mahmudiono1,2, Triska Susila Nindya1, Qonita Rachmah1, Calista Segalita1, Luh Ade Ari Wiradnyani2.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of behavioral-based nutrition education to increase fish consumption among school children using a raised bed pool. This was a randomized control trial study with a 3-months nutrition education intervention using a raised bed pool, as a medium to improve their internalization to increase fish consumption behavior. A paired t-test was used to calculate the difference in the increase of fish consumption, knowledge, attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and intention. This study took place in a majority of low to medium urban households in Surabaya in Sidotopo Wetan I and Sidotopo Wetan II elementary school. Elementary school children at 4th and 5th grade and mother of elementary school children with 104 children were eligible and willing to participate. After the completion of interventions, significant improvement in delta-mean and effectiveness observed in attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, intention, knowledge, and fish consumption (p < 0.001). The 3 months of nutrition education intervention based on the theory of planned behavior significantly increase fish consumption among elementary school children. The increased consumption was believed to be related to the increase in children's knowledge and attitude towards consuming fish.Entities:
Keywords: Indonesia; fish consumption; nutrition education; raised bed pool; school children
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32977684 PMCID: PMC7579595 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17196970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The Construct of Theory of Planned Behavior (adapted from [14] by Robert Orzanna).
Figure 2The CONSORT diagram of the study.
Children characteristics.
| Children Characteristics | Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Age, years | 11.56 | 0.61 | 11.76 | 0.66 | 0.109 |
| Height, cm | 145.04 | 7.16 | 144.43 | 7.07 | 0.665 |
| Weight, kg | 43.76 | 13.88 | 39.60 | 12.07 | 0.111 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 20.48 | 5.14 | 18.99 | 4.29 | 0.118 |
| Total Fat, g | 26.52 | 22.96 | 23.26 | 5.99 | 0.333 |
| Resting Metabolic Rate, Cal/day a | 1111.09 | 309.50 | 1001.48 | 260.20 | 0.056 |
| Fish consumption at Baseline | 0.37 | 0.66 | 1.30 | 1.02 | <0.001 * |
* Statistically significant at alpha = 0.05 based on the independent t-test; a RMR was retrieved through BIA body composition tools.
Household characteristics.
| Household Characteristics | Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | ||
| Type of household | 0.617 | ||||
| Nuclear family | 41 | 41 | 39 | 39 | |
| Extended family | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | |
| Maternal literacy | 0.140 | ||||
| Partially Literate | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | |
| Literate | 48 | 48 | 44 | 44 | |
| Mother’s education | 0.212 | ||||
| Did not Finish Elementary | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Finish Elementary | 11 | 11 | 4 | 4 | |
| Finish Junior High School | 2 | 2 | 8 | 8 | |
| Finis Senior High School | 27 | 27 | 28 | 28 | |
| Diploma | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | |
| University | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
| Mother’s occupation | 0.437 | ||||
| Housewife | 42 | 42 | 43 | 43 | |
| Civil Servant | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Company Worker/Employee | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Farmers/Labour | |||||
| Service Worker | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Others | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Household income (IDR) | 0.054 | ||||
| <500,000 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | |
| 500,000–1,000,000 | 13 | 13 | 2 | 2 | |
| >1,000,000–1,500,000 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | |
| >1,500,000–2,000,000 | 9 | 9 | 16 | 16 | |
| >2,000,000–2,500,000 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | |
| >2,500,000–3,000,000 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | |
| >3,000,000 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 9 | |
| Household food expenditure | 0.243 | ||||
| <500,000 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | |
| 500,000–1,000,000 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 2 | |
| >1,000,000–1,500,000 | 5 | 4 | 4 | ||
| >1,500,000–2,000,000 | 8 | 8 | 16 | 16 | |
| >2,000,000–2,500,000 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | |
| >2,500,000–3,000,000 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 9 | |
| >3,000,000 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | |
* The difference in characteristics was analyzed using the Chi-Square test.
Change in children’s attitude towards fish consumption after 3 months of intervention.
| Attitude Score | Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta Mean | SD | Delta Mean | SD | |||
| Benefit of fish consumption | −0.54 | 1.91 | 0.048* | 0.26 | 1.35 | 0.180 |
| Enjoyment on consuming | −0.58 | 2.39 | 0.087 | -0.04 | 2.09 | 0.893 |
| Good or bad if we ate fish | −0.25 | 1.91 | 0.352 | -0.20 | 2.73 | 0.607 |
| Benefit of fish consumption | 0.19 | 2.52 | 0.585 | 0.40 | 1.81 | 0.124 |
| Enjoyment on consuming fish | 0.31 | 2.53 | 0.385 | 1.38 | 2.16 | <0.001 * |
| Good or bad if we ate fish | 0.59 | 2.38 | 0.077 | 0.37 | 2.79 | 0.362 |
| Benefit of fish consumption | 0.46 | 2.53 | 0.195 | 1.22 | 2.54 | 0.001 * |
| Enjoyment on consuming | 1.08 | 4.84 | 0.115 | 0.90 | 2.05 | 0.003 * |
| Good or bad if we ate fish | 0.52 | 2.46 | 0.134 | 1.44 | 2.99 | 0.001 * |
* Statistically significant at alpha = 0.05 based on the paired t-test.
Change in children’s subjective norm in fish consumption after 3 months of intervention.
| Subjective Norm Score | Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta Mean | SD | Delta Mean | SD | |||
| Parental advice to eat fish | −0.23 | 1.42 | 0.248 | 0.16 | 1.66 | 0.498 |
| Peers/friends advice to eat fish | −0.27 | 1.74 | 0.269 | 0.44 | 1.87 | 0.138 |
| Teacher advice to eat fish | −0.31 | 1.59 | 0.169 | −0.14 | 1.47 | 0.504 |
| Doctor advice to eat fish | −0.33 | 1.59 | 0.145 | −0.22 | 1.46 | 0.292 |
| Parental consent to eat more fish | −0.35 | 1.44 | 0.089 | −0.10 | 1.50 | 0.640 |
| Peers/friends consent | 0.31 | 2.21 | 0.320 | 0.32 | 1.65 | 0.176 |
| Teacher consent to eat more fish | −0.12 | 1.35 | 0.541 | 0.06 | 1.47 | 0.775 |
| Doctor consent to eat more fish | −0.17 | 1.74 | 0.475 | −0.14 | 1.54 | 0.523 |
Statistically significant at alpha = 0.05 based on the paired t-test.
Change in children’s perceived behavioral control towards fish consumption after 3 months of intervention.
| Perceived Behavioural Control Score | Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta Mean | SD | Delta Mean | SD | |||
| Perception that increasing fish consumption in one month is easy | −0.12 | 1.75 | 0.636 | −0.36 | 2.14 | 0.239 |
| I can increase my fish consumption if I wanted to | −0.02 | 2.65 | 0.958 | 0.32 | 1.96 | 0.255 |
| I can increase my fish consumption if I know the benefit for it | −0.52 | 1.85 | 0.049 * | 0.18 | 1.54 | 0.411 |
* Statistically significant at alpha = 0.05 based on the paired t-test.
Change in children’s intention towards fish consumption after 3 months of intervention.
| Intention Score | Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta Mean | SD | Delta Mean | SD | |||
| I intent to eat fish | −0.15 | 1.76 | 0.532 | 0.02 | 1.57 | 0.929 |
| I will try to eat fish | −0.25 | 2.02 | 0.376 | −0.30 | 1.74 | 0.229 |
| I am planning to eat fish | −0.54 | 1.93 | 0.049 * | −0.28 | 1.85 | 0.290 |
* Statistically significant at alpha = 0.05 based on the paired t-test.
Change in children’s fish consumption after 3 months intervention.
| Variable | Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta Mean | SD | Delta Mean | SD | |||
| Number of fishes consumed | 0.19 | 1.03 | 0.184 | 0.58 | 1.74 | 0.022 * |
| Energy intake from | 11.73 | 42.42 | 0.051 | 21.87 | 78.33 | 0.054 |
| Protein intake from fish | 1.95 | 7.90 | 0.082 | 3.38 | 13.49 | 0.083 |
| Fat intake from fish | 0.38 | 1.37 | 0.052 | 0.84 | 4.07 | 0.151 |
* Statistically significant at alpha = 0.05 based on the paired t-test.
Change in children’s knowledge of the importance of fish consumption after 3 months of intervention.
| Variable | Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta Mean | SD | Delta Mean | SD | |||
| Knowledge Score | 1.29 | 2.65 | 0.001 * | 1.70 | 2.54 | <0.001 * |
* Statistically significant at alpha = 0.05 based on the paired t-test.