The role of correlated factors based on Pender health promotion model in brushing behavior in the 13–16 years old students of Guilan, Iran

Abstract

Background Tooth decay is one of the diseases that is closely related to people’s behaviors and it can have adverse effects on their performance and their success in the future. Brushing twice a day is the simplest and most effective way to reduce tooth decay. The study aim was to determining the roles of correlational factors based on the Pender’s health promotion model in brushing behavior of ninth grade students at urban public schools of Guilan province during the academic year 2019. Methods The present study was cross-sectional and had a descriptive-analytical type. We performed the multi-stage random sampling on 761 ninth-grade students (374 girls and 387 boys) at urban public schools of six counties (ten cities) of Guilan province in 2019. The primary tool was a questionnaire on oral health behaviors focusing on brushing behavior. In the present study, which was conducted only on brushing behavior, we revised and changed the initial questionnaire during the sessions of the research team, and then confirmed its validity and reliability. The questionnaire consisted of three parts, demographic characteristics, constructs of health promotion model, and brushing behavior. We analyzed data in SPSS 21 using regression models. Results 20.1% of students brushed their teeth at least twice a day. Optimal behavior had a statistically significant relationship with parents’ education level, and gender. Based on the regression model, the health promotion model constructs described 58% of the variance of the commitment to plan of action. Perceived self-efficacy, situational influences, and perceived barriers of action had significantly stronger relationships with commitment to plan of action respectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that one-unit increase in scores of commitment to plan of action and self-efficacy increased the chance of desired behavior by 12 and 14% respectively. Conclusion Due to the low rate of brushing behavior in the students and the predictive power of the health promotion model in brushing behavior, we suggest planning and implementation of educational interventions for this group with an emphasis on influencing the commitment to plan of action, self-efficacy, and also the level of knowledge.

Effects of Multidimensional Self-Esteems on Health Promotion Behaviors in Adolescents

“…Among them, girls are easier to complete the promotion of health responsibility and nutritional behavior than men; In the three behaviors of stress management, social support and sports participation, men are easier to complete the promotion work; From the perspective of overall health promotion behavior, boys are more likely to complete health promotion than girls. These findings are similar to the results of many previous studies ( 31 – 33 ). This study also found that gender also affects adolescents' self-esteem, in which men have higher control perception than girls, while girls have higher evaluation orientation than men.…”

Mediating effect of kinesiophobia between self-efficacy and physical activity levels in post-CABG patients: protocol for a prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study in China

“…17 It has been widely applied to different health promotion behaviours, and has achieved substantial results. 18 19 The model includes three basic components that influence health-promoting behaviours as follows: (1) Open access cognitions and affection (perceived benefits of action, perceived barriers of action, perceived self-efficacy, situational influences, interpersonal influences and activityrelated affection); and (3) Desirable health-promoting behaviours. Individual characteristics and prior experiences assess previous relevant behaviours as well as the innate factors that influence health promotion behaviours.…”

“…Pender’s health promotion model (HPM) combines factors that may influence one’s behaviour, such as cognition, experience and society factors 17. It has been widely applied to different health promotion behaviours, and has achieved substantial results 18 19. The model includes three basic components that influence health-promoting behaviours as follows: (1) Individual characteristics and experiences (prior related behaviours and personal factors); (2) Behaviour-specific cognitions and affection (perceived benefits of action, perceived barriers of action, perceived self-efficacy, situational influences, interpersonal influences and activity-related affection); and (3) Desirable health-promoting behaviours.…”

Stunting Prevention Based on Health Promotion Model From Perspective Philosophy of Science: A Literature Review

“…(Kajjura, Veldman and Kassier, 2019), and (Febriana and Nurhaeni, 2019). Articles discussing the application of the theory of Nola J. Pender health promotion model obtained 7 articles, namely his research (Shaahmadi et al ., 2019), (Bahabadi et al ., 2020), (Erenoglu, Rabiye, PhD; Can, Rana, PhD; Sekerci, Yasemin Gumus, 2019), (Goodarzi-Khoigani et al ., 2018), (Hepburn, 2018), (Haghi et al ., 2021), dan (Hosseini Khaboshan et al ., 2021)…”

“…Research (Hepburn, 2018) literation of health, self-efficacy, and readiness to change are variables related to health promotion behavior. Research (Haghi et al ., 2021) shows that perceived self-efficacy, situational influences, and perceived barriers to action have a significantly stronger relationship with commitment to plan of action. Research (Hosseini Khaboshan et al ., 2021) in the experimental group, the intervention program had a significant effect on all HPM constructs which included behavior outcome, and the estimates for prior behaviours, self-efficacy, interpersonal influences, feeling, perceived benefits and barriers, commitment, and behavior outcomes…”