Using the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to understand the decision to use condoms in an STD clinic population.

S A Baker, D M Morrison, W B Carter, M S Verdon
{"title":"Using the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to understand the decision to use condoms in an STD clinic population.","authors":"S A Baker,&nbsp;D M Morrison,&nbsp;W B Carter,&nbsp;M S Verdon","doi":"10.1177/109019819602300411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The theory of reasoned action (TRA) provides useful information when designing health education interventions. In this study, 703 heterosexual STD clinic clients responded to a TRA-based survey. With steady partners, social norms and attitudes toward condom use were significant predictors of intention for both men and women. The interaction of attitude and norm increased prediction for men (R = .64, p < 0.001) and women (R = .70, p < 0.001). With casual partners, attitude was a predictor for men and social norm was a predictor for women. Prior use of condoms increased prediction for men (R = .38, p < 0.001) and women (R = .47, p < 0.001). Findings suggest that, in addition to traditional TRA model variables, the relationship between sexual partners and the individual's prior experience with condom use should be incorporated into attempts to understand this complex, dyadic behavior. Examining specific outcome and normative beliefs also provides important information for intervention design.</p>","PeriodicalId":77155,"journal":{"name":"Health education quarterly","volume":"23 4","pages":"528-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/109019819602300411","citationCount":"59","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health education quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819602300411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

Abstract

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) provides useful information when designing health education interventions. In this study, 703 heterosexual STD clinic clients responded to a TRA-based survey. With steady partners, social norms and attitudes toward condom use were significant predictors of intention for both men and women. The interaction of attitude and norm increased prediction for men (R = .64, p < 0.001) and women (R = .70, p < 0.001). With casual partners, attitude was a predictor for men and social norm was a predictor for women. Prior use of condoms increased prediction for men (R = .38, p < 0.001) and women (R = .47, p < 0.001). Findings suggest that, in addition to traditional TRA model variables, the relationship between sexual partners and the individual's prior experience with condom use should be incorporated into attempts to understand this complex, dyadic behavior. Examining specific outcome and normative beliefs also provides important information for intervention design.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
运用理性行为理论(TRA)了解性病门诊人群使用避孕套的决定。
理性行为理论为设计健康教育干预措施提供了有用的信息。在这项研究中,703名异性性传播疾病诊所的来访者参与了一项基于tra的调查。对于稳定的伴侣,社会规范和对避孕套使用的态度是男性和女性意图的重要预测因素。态度和规范的交互作用增加了男性(R = 0.64, p < 0.001)和女性(R = 0.70, p < 0.001)的预测。对于随意的伴侣,态度是男性的预测因素,社会规范是女性的预测因素。先前使用安全套增加了男性(R = 0.38, p < 0.001)和女性(R = 0.47, p < 0.001)的预测。研究结果表明,除了传统的TRA模型变量外,性伴侣和个人之前使用安全套的经历之间的关系应该被纳入理解这种复杂的二元行为的尝试中。检查具体的结果和规范性信念也为干预设计提供了重要的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Usefulness of multiple equations for predicting preventive oral health behaviors. Using the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to understand the decision to use condoms in an STD clinic population. Adolescent sexual health. Program: N'go Doo Dee Family Support Initiative. Program: Responsible Alcohol and Tobacco Sales Training (RATS).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1