Table 2.
Comparison of constructs of Pender's Health Promotion Model and weekly frequency of breakfast consumption before and after the intervention according to study group: female students (n 100) attending two middle schools in average-income areas of Qom, Iran, April–June 2011
| Experimental group | Control group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |||||
| Variable | Mean | sd | Mean | sd | Mean | sd | Mean | sd |
| Perceived benefits | 22·92 | 3·82 | 25·60*,† | 3·60 | 23·18 | 2·87 | 23·78 | 4·28 |
| Perceived barriers | 17·96 | 6·53 | 14·44*,† | 4·96 | 16·94 | 7·67 | 16·86 | 6·70 |
| Perceived self-efficacy | 19·70 | 5·18 | 22·62*,† | 4·44 | 19·38 | 5·07 | 19·80 | 5·99 |
| Activity-related affect (positive) | 8·08 | 1·98 | 8·84*,† | 1·50 | 8·30 | 1·59 | 8·08 | 2·20 |
| Activity-related affect (negative) | 4·08 | 1·79 | 3·28*,† | 1·37 | 3·96 | 2·01 | 4·18 | 1·85 |
| Interpersonal influences | 37·18 | 8·37 | 41·52*,† | 8·12 | 34·54 | 8·48 | 34·98 | 9·49 |
| Situational influences | 1·26 | 0·69 | 1·60*,† | 0·67 | 1·46 | 0·50 | 1·50 | 0·58 |
| Competing demands and preferences | 2·12 | 1·67 | 1·40*,† | 0·96 | 2·02 | 1·50 | 1·88 | 1·17 |
| Commitment to plan of action | 17·32 | 4·07 | 19·98*,† | 3·53 | 18·22 | 4·16 | 17·80 | 3·88 |
| Weekly frequency of breakfast consumption | 3·80 | 2·71 | 4·93*,† | 2·33 | 3·60 | 2·68 | 3·83 | 2·68 |
Mean values were significantly different from those of the control group (independent-samples t test): *P < 0·05.
Mean values were significantly different from those before the intervention (paired-samples t test): †P < 0·05.