We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The relative contribution of health promotion models (HPM) to improve health-related behaviours in intervention programmes is still limited. Here, we tested whether Pender’s HPM operationalised in the educational intervention was effective to modify nutrition and physical activity (PA) behaviours among Iranian women.
Design:
A randomised controlled field trial evaluating the efficacy of an educational intervention based on Pender’s HPM to improve PA and nutrition behaviours from August 2016 to October 2016. R version 3.0.2 and SPSS version 16 were used to conduct multiple statistical analyses.
Setting:
Ten public healthcare centres in Bojnourd, Iran were randomly divided into intervention and control groups. The experimental group received the full intervention programme, which included nine 4-h training sessions and consulting support via phone contact and social media group. The control group did not receive any intervention.
Participants:
Women aged 4–6 years (n 202) were randomised to intervention (n 102) and control conditions (n 100) and completed baseline and 3-month follow-up.
Results:
In the experimental group, the intervention programme had a significant effect (P < 0·05) on all construct of Pender’s HPM and behaviour outcome, and the estimates for prior behaviours, self-efficacy, interpersonal influences, feeling, perceived benefits and barriers, commitment and behaviour outcomes in the intervention group were 0·72 (95 % CI 0·31, 0·98), 0·54 (95 % CI 0·27, 0·71), 0·74 (95 % CI 0·27, 0·91), 0·52 (95 % CI 0·19, 0·75), 0·62 (95 % CI 0·22, 0·91), 0·63 (95 % CI 0·30, 0·86) and 0·56 (95 % CI 0·37, 0·85), respectively.
Conclusions:
Educational intervention based on Pender’s HPM was feasible and highly acceptable to modify PA and nutrition behaviours in the women population.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.