Diet and cardiovascular disease : interrelationships among nutrition attitudes, knowledge, practice, and biodemographic characteristics of adult members of community centres
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A study was designed to investigate the attitudes, knowledge, and practice regarding diet and cardiovascular disease (CVD) among adult members attending selected community centres. The relationships among attitudes, knowledge, and practice and the influence of specific biodemographic variables on these three dependent variables were determined. The independent vari ables, non-manipulative in nature, were age, gender, living arrangement, family history of CVD, personal history of CVD, physical exercise pattern, smoking habit, education level, and obesity risk. Data were collected by a self-administered questionnaire that had been validated and pretested in a pilot study In May 1979, questionnaires were distributed by random day to adult members of 11 community centres in the city of Vancouver. Each centre was represented by a random sample or by volunteers in attendance at each class on the chosen day. The final sample size was 281, yielding an overall response rate of 74.7%. Data were analyzed by computer and all analyses were conducted at the .05 level of significance. Expressed as percentages of possible scores, the mean scores for the two attitude subtests and total test were quite high (83%) with standard deviations of 8 to 9%. The mean scores for the three knowledge subtests and total test revealed tests of medium difficulty (48 to 53%) with standard deviations of 12 to 17%. Practice scores, expressed as ratios of recommended values, were equal to or exceeded the Canadian Dietary Standard and the Nutrition Recommendations for Canadians for nine of the 11 nutrients examined; all were greater than 67% of the recommended values. Reliabilities determined by internal consistency, test-retest, and congruency check procedures for attitudes and knowledge, biodemographic, and practice instruments, respectively, were considered adequate for the purpose of the study. Correlation analysis revealed that attitudes and knowledge were moderately correlated (range .38 to .56) but practice and both attitudes and knowledge were weakly correlated (range .00 to .24). One-way multivariate analyses of variance revealed that living arrangement, degree of obesity, and positive family history of CVD did not appear to have an effect on any of the dependent variables. Smoking habit was not found to influence either attitudes or knowledge. Multivariate analyses of variance revealed that respondents with a positive personal history of CVD had significantly different attitudes toward the use of diet in prevention of CVD and performed significantly better on the subtest about the affect of foods than those without a positive history. Adults under 50 years of age had significantly more positive attitudes toward the role of diet in heart disease and scored significantly higher on subtest of facts versus fallacy than adults over 50 years of age. Females had significantly more positive attitudes and performed significantly better on all knowledge subtests than males. The education group with less than grade 12 had significantly less positive attitudes toward the role of diet' in heart disease and significantly lower knowledge related to food composition than all other education groups; and significantly lower scores on facts versus fallacy than the one to three years university group. No significant differences in knowledge or practice were observed between groups who varied in exercise pattern, however, the sedentary group had significantly less positive attitudes toward the role of diet in heart disease than those who were classified as high moderate or vigorous. While significant differences in practice were observed for a number of biodemographic variables, no particular group was characterized by a deficient or excess intake of any of the 11 nutrients examined. Several implications for nutrition education were inferred from interpretation of results.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».