| Literature DB >> 34789071 |
Kolentino N Mpeta1, Ntebogang D Moroke2, Lesego Gabaitiri3.
Abstract
Knowledge with respect to adolescents' intentions to engage in protective sexual behaviours is still deficient in numerous countries around the world, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where HIV prevalence is the highest. Increasing cross-sectional research suggests that the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is robust in predicting condom use intentions. This study used secondary, baseline data from a study involving 794 in-school adolescents. A structural equation model was applied to the data. Latent variables were used to validate the applicability of the TPB in HIV/AIDS prevention among adolescents in the Botswana context. The predictors of interest were all derived from the TPB. The results revealed that the TPB predictors, apart from affective and instrumental attitude, were predictive of condom use intention among Batswana adolescents. The independent variables explained 57% of the variance in the model. These results suggest that the TPB is recommended as a framework to establish the predictors of condom use intention among Batswana in-school adolescents. Policy makers working on developing HIV education programmes or interventions targeted at adolescents should improve the intention to use condoms via promotion of positive instrumental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control beliefs of condom use.Entities:
Keywords: Theory of planned behaviour; attitudes; structural equation modelling; subjective norms
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34789071 PMCID: PMC8604454 DOI: 10.1080/17290376.2021.2002714
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SAHARA J ISSN: 1729-0376
Candidate condom use intention variables for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and SEM analysis.
| Latent variable | Indicators | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Norms | NO1 | My girlfriend/boyfriend would think it is OK for us to use condoms … in the next 3 months |
| NO2 | My mother/female guardian would think it is OK for me to use condoms … in the next 3 months | |
| NO3 | My father/male guardian would think it is OK for me to use condoms … in the next 3 months | |
| NO4 | My friends would think it is OK for me to use condoms … .in the next 3 months | |
| Aff_Att | AA1 | Condoms are embarrassing to use |
| AA2 | Condoms reduce pleasure | |
| AA3 | Condoms cause pain | |
| AA4 | Condoms make you not want to have sex because you have to stop to put one on | |
| Instr_Att | AA5 | When a condom is used, sex still feels good |
| AA6 | When a condom is used, sex is more fun | |
| IA1 | Condoms help prevent STDs | |
| IA2 | Condoms help prevent AIDS | |
| IA3 | Condoms help prevent pregnancy | |
| Perceived Control | PC1 | I can talk to the person with whom I have sex about using condoms |
| PC2 | I can get the person with whom I have sex to use a condom, even if he/she doesn’t want me to use a condom | |
| PC3 | I can say to the person with whom I have sex that we should use a condom | |
| PC4 | Before we are ready to have sex, I can talk to the person with whom I have sex about using a condom | |
| PC5 | I can convince the person with whom I have sex to use a condom | |
| PC6 | I feel confident that I could easily persuade my sex partner to use a condom before we started having sex | |
| PC7 | If I am sexually aroused, I can stop before sex to use a condom | |
| PC8 | If my partner and I do not have a condom, I can say no to sex | |
| PC9 | I am sure that I can always use a condom if I have sex | |
| PC10 | I can put a condom on without turning off the person with whom I have sex | |
| PC11 | I can put on a condom, even if the room is dark | |
| CdmUse Intention | CUI1 | I will try my best to use condoms if I have sex in the next 3 months |
| CUI2 | I plan to always use condoms if I have sex in the next 3 months |
Condom use knowledge frequency distribution (n = 793).
| Question/statement | Correct | Incorrect |
|---|---|---|
| Can people reduce their chances of getting HIV/AIDS by using a condom correctly every time they have sex? | 675 (85.1) | 118 (14.9) |
| When s condom is placed on the penis, space should be left at the tip of the condom. | 457 (57.6) | 336 (42.4) |
| Storing or carrying condoms in a hot or warm place can destroy their effectiveness. | 554 (69.9) | 239 (30.1) |
| The penis should be hard when the condom is put on it. | 502 (63.3) | 291 (36.7) |
| If you place a condom on the penis the wrong way, you should start over with a new condom. | 539 (68.0) | 254 (32.0) |
Figure 1.Chi-square probability plot.
Assessment of normality results.
| Variable | skewness | kurtosis | c.r. |
|---|---|---|---|
| NO1 | −1.451 | 1.583 | 9.103 |
| NO2 | −1.326 | 0.658 | 3.782 |
| NO3 | −1.242 | 0.443 | 2.546 |
| NO4 | −1.202 | 0.673 | 3.872 |
| IA1 | −1.948 | 3.516 | 20.224 |
| IA2 | −2.020 | 4.189 | 24.093 |
| IA3 | −2.115 | 5.152 | 29.633 |
| CUI2 | −1.872 | 3.992 | 22.963 |
| CUI1 | −1.876 | 3.827 | 22.014 |
| AA4 | 0.905 | 0.143 | 0.824 |
| AA3 | 1.246 | 1.240 | 7.130 |
| AA2 | 0.501 | −0.807 | −4.642 |
| AA1 | 1.517 | 1.527 | 8.785 |
| PC1 | −1.195 | 0.881 | 5.066 |
| PC2 | −0.983 | 0.197 | 1.130 |
| PC3 | −1.646 | 3.228 | 18.566 |
| PC4 | −1.544 | 3.044 | 17.506 |
| PC5 | −1.229 | 1.284 | 7.384 |
| PC6 | −0.985 | 0.585 | 3.365 |
| PC9 | −1.436 | 2.337 | 13.442 |
| Multivariate | 310.268 | 147.359 |
Figure 2.Path diagram showing CFA standardised estimates.
Measurement model convergent validity results.
| Constructs | Cronbach’s test | Composite Reliability | AVE | Measurement factor Loadings (λ) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item-total correlation | ||||||
| Affective_Attitude (Aff_Att) | AA1 | 0.659 | 0.561 | |||
| AA2 | 0.528 | |||||
| AA3 | 0.628 | |||||
| AA4 | 0.566 | |||||
| Instrumental_Attitude (Instr_Att) | IA1 | 0.729 | 0.873 | 0.878 | 0.707 | 0.792 |
| IA2 | 0.808 | 0.903 | ||||
| IA3 | 0.743 | 0.823 | ||||
| Perceived control | PC1 | 0.842 | 0.846 | 0.604 | ||
| PC2 | 0.570 | |||||
| PC3 | 0.692 | 0.764 | ||||
| PC4 | 0.700 | 0.784 | ||||
| PC5 | 0.631 | 0.694 | ||||
| PC6 | 0.630 | |||||
| PC9 | 0.580 | |||||
| Normative beliefs (Norms) | NO1 | 0.672 | 0.890 | 0.891 | 0.676 | 0.685 |
| NO2 | 0.821 | 0.916 | ||||
| NO3 | 0.827 | 0.921 | ||||
| NO4 | 0.726 | 0.739 | ||||
| CdmUse intention | CUI1 | 0.735 | 0.847 | 0.848 | 0.736 | 0.884 |
| CUI2 | 0.735 | 0.831 | ||||
Inter-correlation matrix.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Aff_Att | |||||
| 2. Instr_Att | −0.333 | ||||
| 3. Norms | −0.311 | 0.189 | |||
| 4. Perceived control | −0.473 | 0.347 | 0.451 | ||
| 5. CdmUse Intention | −0.413 | 0.306 | 0.513 | 0.724 |
Figure 3.Full structural model.
Summarised results from structural model analysis (standard errors in brackets; n = 794).
| Proposed hypothesis statement | Hypothesis | Unstandardised coefficient | Standardised coefficient | One tailed | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CdmUse_Intention ← Aff_Att | H1 | −0.068 | −0.053 | 0.1145 | Partially supported |
| CdmUse_Intention ← Instr_Att | H2 | 0.049 | 0.044 | 0.1005 | Partially supported |
| CdmUse_Intention ← Norms | H3 | 0.211 | 0.226 | <0.001 | Supported |
| CdmUse_Intention ← Perceived_control | H4 | 0.676 | 0.582 | <0.001 | Supported |
Bootstrap results (n = 794, B = 1000).
| Parameter estimate | Mean of estimates | S.E. | Bias | 95% BC Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CdmUse_Intention ← Aff_Att | −.068 | .068 | .000 | .128 | (−.219, .058) |
| CdmUse_Intention ← Instr_Att | .050 | .040 | .002 | .095 | (−.0.027, .134) |
| CdmUse_Intention ← Norms | .209 | .045 | −.002 | <0.001 | (.133, .314) |
| CdmUse_Intention ← Perceived_control | .675 | .072 | .001 | <0.001 | (.546, .832) |