Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Factors Affecting Health Promotion Behavior among Workers with High Risk of Metabolic Syndrome: Based on Theory of Planned Behavior

Article information

Res Community Public Health Nurs. 2015;26(2):128-139
Publication date (electronic) : 2015 June 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2015.26.2.128
Sungwon Park1, Sook Ja Yang2
1Banyan Tree Club & Spa Seoul · Division of Nursing Science, EwhaWomans University, Seoul, Korea.
2Division of Nursing Science, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Corresponding author: Yang, Sook Ja. Division of Nursing Science, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-750, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3277-4652, Fax: +82-2-3277-2850, yangsj@ewha.ac.kr
Received 2015 January 30; Revised 2015 June 04; Accepted 2015 June 19.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify factors affecting health promotion behavior among workers with high risk of metabolic syndrome. This study was based on the planned behavior theory.

Methods

The participants were 167 workers at high risk of metabolic syndrome. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire. Surveyed variables were attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, intention, and health promotion behavior. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson's correlation coefficients, and hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS/WIN 22.0.

Results

Perceived behavioral control affected the intention of health promotion behavior among the workers with high risk of metabolic syndrome. It explained 62% of variance in the intention of health promotion behavior (F=40.09, p<.001). Perceived behavioral control and occupation affected health promotion behavior among the risk workers with high risk of metabolic syndrome. The two factors explained 16% of variance in health promotion behavior (F=4.95, p<.001).

Conclusion

The findings of this study suggest that perceived behavioral control is the only factor affecting health promotion behavior when the theory of planned behavior was applied. Therefore, intervention programs for improving health promotion behavior should be focused on strengthening perceived behavioral control.

Keywords: Metabolic syndrome X; Health promotion; Workers; Health behavior

Notes

This article is a condensed form of thr first author Sungwon Park's master's thesis from Ewha Womans University.

References

1. Oh SW. Shows the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in adults over 30 years old 28.8%! [Internet] Seoul: Ministry of Health and Welfare, Division of Health Policy; 2012. cited 2014 Mar 10. Available from: http://www.mw.go.kr/front_new/al/sal0301vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=04&MENU_ID=0403&CONT_SEQ=268137&page=1.
2. Ryu S, Song J, Choi BY, Lee SJ, Kim WS, Chang YS, et al. Incidence and risk factors for metabolic syndrome in Korean male workers, age 30 to 39. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17(4):245–252. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.10.001.
3. Kim CJ, Park JB, Kim BT. Lifestyle characteristics, metabolic syndrome risk factors and risk of cardiovascular disease among workers in Kyeongki-do. Korean J Occup Health Nurs 2008;17(2):230–238.
4. Park SY, Yang YJ, Kim YR. Effects of nutrition education using a ubiquitous healthcare (u-health) service on metabolic syndrome in male workers. Korean J Nutr 2011;44(3):231–242. 10.4163/kjn.2011.44.3.231.
5. Maruyama C, Kimura M, Okumura H, Hayashi K, Arao T. Effect of a worksite-based intervention program on metabolic parameters in middle-aged male white-collar workers: A randomized controlled trial. Prev Med 2010;51(1):11–17. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.04.008.
6. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Whincup PH. Modifiable lifestyle factors and the metabolic syndrome in older men: Effects of lifestyle changes. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54(12):1909–1914. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00974.x.
7. Kim YH, Park RJ, Park WJ, Kim MB, Moon JD. Predictors of metabolic syndrome among shipyard workers and its prevalence. Korean J Occup Environ Med 2009;21(3):209–217.
8. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, Donato KA, Eckel RH, Franklin BA, et al. Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: An American heart association/national heart, lung, and blood institute scientific statement. Circulation 2005;112(17):2735–2752.
9. Tsai TY, Cheng JF, Lai YM. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and related factors in Taiwanese high-tech industry workers. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2011;66(9):1531–1535.
10. Kang JY, Cho SW, Lee JY, Sung SH, Park YK, Paek YM, et al. The effects of a worksite on-line health education program on metabolic syndrome risk factors and nurtient intakes of male workers. Korean J Nutr 2010;43(1):57–68. 10.4163/kjn.2010.43.1.57.
11. Bae SS. Approaches and theories of health promotion Seoul: Gyechuk Munwhasa; 2012. p. 524.
12. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991;50(2):179–211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
13. Bae SS, Lee HJ, Lee CO, Jo HS. Predicting exercise behavior in female workers: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Korean J Health Educ Promot 2003;20(1):173–186.
14. Lee HJ, Jo BH. Factors affection intentions for health behaviors among male office workers: An analysis based on the theory of planned behavior. Korean J Occup Health Nurs 2002;11(1):31–43.
15. Payne N, Jones F, Harris PR. The role of perceived need within the theory of planned behavior: A comparison of exercise and healthy eating. Br J Health Psychol 2004;9(Pt 4):489–504.
16. Korean Academy of Medical Science. Metabolic syndrome: An overview [Internet] Seoul: Korean Academy of Medical Science; 2010. cited 2014 January 26. Available from: http://www.kams.or.kr/health/sub3.html.
17. Kang SW. Development of a lifestyle evaluation tool for patients with metabolic syndrome [dissertation] [Seoul]: Yonsei University; 2007. 120.
18. Plotnikoff RC, Lubans DR, Costigan SA, McCargar L. A test of the theory of planned behavior to predict physical activity in an overweight/obese population sample of adolescents from Alberta, Canada. Health Educ Behav 2013;40(4):415–425. 10.1177/1090198112455642.
19. Park BH, Lee MS, Hong JY, Bae SH, Kim EY, Kim KK, et al. The stages of physical activity and exercise behavior: An integrated approach to the theory of planned behavior. Asia Pac J Public Health 2009;21(1):71–83. 10.1177/1010539508327089.
20. Andrykowski MA, Beacham AO, Schmidt JE, Harper FW. Application of the theory of planned behavior to understand intentions to engage in physical and psychosocial health behaviors after cancer diagnosis. Psychooncology 2006;15(9):759–771.
21. Yeongdeungpo-gu Health Center. Metabolic syndrome free screening program [Internet] Seoul: Yeongdeungpo-gu Health Center; 2011. cited 2014 January 15. Available from: http://www.ydp.go.kr/health/page.do?mCode=E120020000.
22. National Health Insurance Service. Health screenings statistical yearbook in 2012 Seoul: National Health Insurance Service; 2013. 12. Report No.: 11-B550928-000048-10.
23. Choi ES. The metabolic syndrome and associated risk factors among male workers in an electronics manufacturing company. Korean J Occup Environ Med 2006;18(1):35–45.
24. Gardner RE, Hausenblas HA. Exercise and diet determinants of overweight women participating in an exercise and diet program: A peospective examination of the theory of planned behavior. Women Health 2005;42(4):37–62.
25. Hunt HR, Gross AM. Prediction of exercise in patients across various stages of bariatric surgery: A comparison of the merits of the theory of reasoned action versus the theory of planned behavior. Behav Modif 2009;33(6):795–817. 10.1177/0145445509348055.
26. Conner M, Sandberg T, Norman P. Using action planning to promote exercise behavior. Ann Behav Med 2010;40(1):65–76. 10.1007/s12160-010-9190-8.
27. Murnaghan DA, Blachard CM, Rodgers WM, LaRosa JN, Mac-Quarrie CR, MacLellan DL, et al. Predictors of physical activity, healthy eating and being smoke-free in teens: A theory of planned behavior approach. Psychol Health 2010;25(8):925–941. 10.1080/08870440902866894.
28. de Bruijn GJ, Rhodes RE. Exploring exercise behavior, intention and habit strength relationships. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2011;21(3):482–491. 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01064.x.
29. Chung HJ, Rho SJ, Lee KH. The effects of cooking operations duties and kitchen facilities on fatigue. J East Asian Soc Diet Life 2008;18(3):405–414.
30. Miller EL, Mitchell A. Metabolic syndrome: Screening, diagnosis, and management. J Midwifery Womens Health 2006;51(3):141–151.

Article information Continued

© 2015 Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Table 1

Sociodemographic Characteristics (N=167)

Variables Categories n (%) or M±SD
Gender Male 137 (82.0)
Female 30 (18.0)
Age (year) 38.7±8.41
20~29 28 (16.8)
30~39 57 (34.1)
40~49 67 (40.1)
50~59 15 (9.0)
Education ≤Middle school 2 (1.2)
Highschool 32 (19.2)
College 128 (76.6)
>College 5 (3.0)
Marriage Yes 119 (71.3)
No 48 (28.7)
Occupation Service 66 (39.5)
Cooking 101 (60.5)
Career experience (year) <5 22 (13.2)
5~<10 26 (15.5)
10~<15 38 (22.8)
15~<20 38 (22.8)
≥20 43 (25.7)
Subjective health status Very unhealthy 1 (0.6)
Unhealthy 24 (14.4)
Usual 83 (49.7)
Healthy 56 (33.5)
Very healthy 3 (1.8)
Disease Yes 26 (15.6)
No 141 (84.4)
Family history of metabolic syndrome Yes 64 (38.3)
No 103 (61.7)
Awareness of metabolic syndrome Yes 102 (61.1)
No 65 (38.9)
Educational experience of metabolic syndrome Yes 36 (21.6)
No 131 (78.4)
Smoking Yes 62 (37.1)
No 105 (62.9)
Duration of smoking (year)† 14.8±6.71
Daily cigarettes 11.1±5.24
Drinking alcohol Yes 96 (57.5)
No 71 (42.5)
Weekly drinking times 1 24 (25.0)
2 39 (40.6)
3 24 (25.0)
≥4 9 (9.4)
Drinking quantity at once (Soju standards)‡ 7.7±4.23

†62 Smokers; ‡96 Drinkers.

Table 2

Metabolic Syndrome Risk Factor Characteristics (N=167)

Variables Categories n (%) M±SD p
Blood sugar† Normal group 111 (66.5) 90.1±6.52 <.001
High risk group 56 (33.5) 112.5±17.27
Systolic blood pressure‡ Normal group 94 (56.3) 118.1±6.22 .005
High risk group 73 (43.7) 133.2±5.17
Diastolic blood pressure§ Normal group 123 (73.7) 77.3±4.26 <.001
High risk group 44 (26.3) 85.5±3.02
Triglyceride level∥ Normal group 111 (66.5) 89.1±30.80 <.001
High risk group 56 (33.5) 217.1±78.83
High-density lipoprotein cholesterol Normal group Male 154 (92.2) 55.5±10.40 .001
Female 65.5±12.92
High risk group Male 13 (7.8) 35.7±3.06 <.001
Female 47.7±2.31
Waist circumference# Normal group Male 137 (82.0) 81.2±4.77 <.001
Female 73.3±6.68
High risk group Male 30 (18.0) 96.1±5.61 <.001
Female 90.3±0.58
Number of metabolic-syndrome risk factors 1 100 (59.9)
2 67 (40.1)

†Blood sugar: Normal group<100 mg/dL, High risk group≥100 mg/dL; ‡Systolic blood pressure: Normal group<130 mmHg, High risk group≥130 mmHg; §Diastolic blood pressure: Normal group<85 mmHg, High risk group≥85 mmHg; ∥Triglyceride level: Normal group<150 mg/dL, High risk group≥150 mg/dL; High-density lipoprotein cholesterol: Male) Normal group>40 mg/dL, High risk group≤40 mg/dL, Female) Normal group>50mg/dL, High risk group≤50mg/dL; #Waist circumference: Male) Normal group<90 cm, High risk group≥90 cm, Female) Normal<85 cm, High risk group≥85 cm.

Table 3

Health Promotion Behavior Intention and Health Promotion Behavior in Accordance with Sociodemographic Characteristics (N=16)

Characteristics Categories Health promotion behavior intention Health promotion behavior
M±SD t or F p M±SD t or F p
Gender Male 1.2±1.19 2.61 .012 0.2±0.62 0.46 .648
Female 0.6±1.14 0.2±0.75
Age (year) <40 1.1±1.10 2.02 .884 0.2±0.68 0.99 .307
≥40 1.1±1.30 0.3±0.60
Education ≤High school 0.9±1.38 -1.19 .241 0.1±0.81 -0.97 .336
≥College 1.2±1.15 0.3±0.59
Marriage Yes 1.1±1.24 -0.28 .779 0.2±0.66 -0.38 .707
No 1.1±1.12 0.3±0.59
Occupation Service 1.2±1.25 1.19 .235 0.4±0.75 2.08 .040
Cooking 1.0±1.17 0.1±0.55
Career experience (year) <10 1.0±1.16 0.44 .645 0.1±0.56 0.92 .400
10~<20 1.2±1.13 0.3±0.66
≥20 1.0±1.38 0.2±0.59
Subjective health status Not healthy 0.8±1.28 3.30 .039 0.2±0.89 4.81 .009
Usual 1.0±1.19 0.1±0.50
Healthy 1.4±1.14 0.4±0.65
Disease Yes 0.9±1.09 -0.86 .395 0.1±0.53 -0.94 .351
No 1.1±1.22 0.3±0.66
Family history of metabolic syndrome Yes 1.0±1.16 -1.09 .277 0.1±0.70 -1.36 .175
No 1.2±1.23 0.3±0.60
Awareness of metabolic syndrome Yes 1.1±1.17 0.16 .874 0.3±0.71 1.17 .244
No 1.1±1.27 0.2±0.50
Educational experience of metabolic syndrome Yes 1.2±1.10 0.51 .612 0.4±0.69 1.89 .064
No 1.1±1.23 0.2±0.62
Smoking Yes 1.3±1.31 1.29 .199 0.2±0.59 -0.45 .651
No 1.0±1.13 0.3±0.67
Drinking alcohol Yes 1.3±1.19 2.42 .017 0.3±0.68 1.49 .139
No 0.8±1.18 0.2±0.58

Table 4

Factors Affecting Health Promotion Behavior Intention (N=167)

Variables Step 1 Step 2
B SE β t p B SE β t p
(Constant) .90 .73 1.24 .217 .79 .47 1.68 .095
Gender -.38 .26 -.12 -1.45 .148 -.19 .17 -.06 -1.11 .268
Education† .17 .24 .06 0.73 .465 -.05 .15 -.02 -0.30 .768
SHS .35 .13 .20 2.62 .010 -.04 .09 -.02 -0.47 .643
Drinking status† -.31 .20 -.13 -1.55 .124 -.15 .13 -.06 -1.16 .247
Attitude .07 .07 .05 0.96 .339
SN .06 .06 .05 0.95 .334
PBC .78 .05 .77 15.26 <.001
Adjusted R2=.07, F=4.06, p=.004 Adjusted R2=.62, F=40.09, p<.001

SHS=subjecitve health status; SN=subjective norm; PBC=perceived behavioral control;

†Dummy variables: Gender (1=Male), Education (1=Under highschool), Drinking status (1=Yes).

Table 5

Factors Affecting Health Promotion Behavior (N=167)

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
B SE β t p B SE β t p B SE β t p
(Constant) .16 .36 0.45 .656 .09 .35 0.26 .796 .04 .36 0.12 .905
Gender† -.06 .13 -.04 -0.46 .644 .01 .12 .01 0.07 .944 .02 .12 .01 0.19 .854
Education† -.22 .12 -.14 -1.81 .072 -.20 .11 -.13 -1.78 .076 -.20 .11 -.13 -1.77 .079
Occupation† -.00 .04 -.01 -0.09 .926 .02 .04 .04 0.52 .605 .03 .04 .60 0.55 .008
SHS .17 .07 .19 2.47 .015 .08 .07 .09 1.21 .229 .08 .07 .10 1.25 .220
Attitude -.03 .05 -.04 -0.52 .602 -.03 .05 -.05 -0.58 .561
SN .01 .05 .02 0.26 .794 .01 .05 .02 0.19 .852
PBC .21 .04 .39 5.10 <.001 .16 .06 .30 2.52 .013
Intention .06 .06 .11 0.95 .346
Adjusted R2=.04, F=2.62, p=.037 Adjusted R2=.16, F=5.54, p<.001 Adjusted R2=.16, F=4.95, p<.001

SHS=subjecitve health status; SN=subjective norm; PBC=perceived behavioral control;

†Dummy variables: Gender (1=Male), Education (1=Under highschool), Occupation (1=Service).