Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Educational intervention for promoting stretching exercise behavior among a sample of Iranian office employees: applying the health promotion model
Delshad MH, Tavafian SS, Kazemnejad A
Journal of Pain Research 2019 Feb 22;12:733-742
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: No; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

INTRODUCTION: Health promotion model (HPM) is one comprehensive model by which health behavior predicting factors could be determined. PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the effects of a designed interventional program based on HPM on promoting stretching exercise (SE) behavior among office employees. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This interventional designed study was carried out on 87 office employees who were working in the three health networks affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran. These participants were randomly divided into intervention group (N = 44) who complied with educational program based on HPM and control group (N = 43) who did not receive the program. The data were collected through a demographic questionnaire and a researcher-made questionnaire based on HPM at three times of baseline, 3- and 6-month follow-ups and analyzed using SPSS version 19. RESULTS: Totally, 40 office employees with mean age of (37.70 +/- 7.40) in intervention and 37 ones with mean age of (35.97 +/- 7.34) in control group were assessed. At baseline, both groups were the same regarding the HPM constructs of perceived barriers, perceived self-efficacy, commitment to plan, and interpersonal influences (p > 0.05). However, following intervention, there was a significant difference between two groups during 6-month follow-up in all these predictor factors (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the mean score of SE behavior in intervention group (22.43 +/- 6.50) was significantly better than the control group (15.45 +/- 0.93) (p < 0.001). The pain severity also in intervention group (1 +/- 1.22) also was significantly less than control group (2 +/- 2.03) after 6-month follow-up (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The SE educational programs applied in this study were effective for promoting SE among office employees.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help