Table 6.
Determinants of intention to use the PhysioDom HDIM intervention† (n 63)
| Block 1 | Block 2 | Block 3 | Block 4 | Final model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R 2 | 0·09 | 0·35 | 0·39 | 0·44 | 0·45 | |||||
| F change | 1·18 | 22·29 | 3·51 | 5·13 | 0·60 | |||||
| P value | 0·33 | 0·00 | 0·07 | 0·03 | 0·44 | |||||
| β | 95 % CI | β | 95 % CI | β | 95 % CI | β | 95 % CI | β | 95 % CI | |
| Age | −0·16 | −0·63, 0·30 | −0·30 | −0·70, 0·10 | −0·27 | −0·66, 0·13 | −0·13 | −0·53, 0·27 | −0·11 | −0·52, 0·29 |
| Sex | 0·02 | −0·01, 0·05 | 0·01 | −0·02, 0·04 | 0·00 | −0·03, 0·03 | 0·01 | −0·02, 0·04 | 0·01 | −0·02, 0·04 |
| Education | −0·22 | −0·53, 0·09 | −0·09 | −0·36, 0·18 | −0·09 | −0·35, 0·18 | −0·03 | −0·29, 0·23 | −0·03 | −0·29, 0·23 |
| Cognitive functioning‡ | 0·20 | −0·03, 0·43 | 0·15 | −0·05, 0·34 | 0·11 | −0·08, 0·31 | 0·10 | −0·08, 0·29 | 0·10 | −0·09, 0·29 |
| Physical functioning§ | 0·02 | −0·07, 0·11 | −0·01 | −0·08, 0·07 | −0·04 | −0·12, 0·04 | −0·03 | −0·11, 0·05 | −0·03 | −0·10, 0·05 |
| Performance expectancy | 0·59 | 0·34, 0·84*** | 0·50 | 0·23, 0·76*** | 0·40 | 0·13, 0·67** | 0·40 | 0·13, 0·67** | ||
| Effort expectancy | 0·30 | −0·02, 0·61 | 0·34 | 0·03, 0·65* | 0·29 | −0·05, 0·62 | ||||
| Social influence | 0·19 | 0·02, 0·35* | 0·17 | 0·00, 0·34* | ||||||
| Facilitating conditions | 0·11 | −0·18, 0·40 | ||||||||
Dependent variable: intention to use PhysioDom HDIM more often (range 1–5).
*P<0·05, **P<0·01, ***P<0·001.
†
The PhysioDom Home Dietary Intake Monitoring (HDIM) intervention consisted of telemonitoring, nutrition education and follow-up by a nurse, implemented in a health-care setting among Dutch community-dwelling older adults from April 2016 to June 2017.
‡
Measured by Mini Mental State Examination.
§
Measured by Short Physical Performance Battery.