Department of Public Health and Primary Care/Leiden University Medical Center-Campus the Hague, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Department of Social, Economic and Organisational Psychology, and Knowledge Centre Psychology and Economic Behaviour, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2022 Jul;54(7):636-646. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2022.02.019. Epub 2022 May 27.
To examine whether an extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) that included finance-related barriers better explained dietary quality.
Cross-sectional survey.
One-thousand and thirty-three participants were included from a Dutch independent adult panel.
Dietary quality.
Five TPB models were assessed: a traditional TPB, a TPB that included direct associations between attitude and subjective norm with dietary quality, a TPB that additionally included financial scarcity or food insecurity, and a TPB that additionally included financial scarcity and food insecurity simultaneously. Structural relationships among the constructs were tested to compare the explanatory power.
The traditional TPB showed poorest fit (χ/degrees of freedom = 11; comparative fit index = 0.75; root mean square error of approximation [95% confidence interval], 0.10 [0.091-0.12]; standardized root mean square residual = 0.049), the most extended TPB (including both financial scarcity and food insecurity) showed best fit (χ/degrees of freedom = 3.3; comparative fit index = 0.95; root mean square error of approximation [95% confidence interval], 0.050 [0.035-0.065]; standardized root mean square residual = 0.018). All 5 structure models explained ∼42% to 43% of the variance in intention; however, the variance in dietary quality was better explained by the extended TPB models, including food insecurity and/or financial scarcity (∼22%) compared with the traditional TBP (∼7%), indicating that these models better explained differences in dietary quality.
These findings highlight the importance of accounting for finance-related barriers to healthy eating like financial scarcity or food insecurity to better understand individual dietary behaviors in lower socioeconomic groups.
研究包含财务相关障碍的扩展计划行为理论(TPB)是否能更好地解释饮食质量。
横断面调查。
从荷兰独立成人小组中纳入了 1331 名参与者。
饮食质量。
评估了五个 TPB 模型:传统 TPB、包含态度和主观规范与饮食质量之间直接关联的 TPB、另外包含财务匮乏或食品不安全的 TPB 以及同时包含财务匮乏和食品不安全的 TPB。测试了结构关系以比较解释力。
传统 TPB 显示出最差的拟合度(χ/自由度=11;比较拟合指数=0.75;近似值的均方根误差[95%置信区间],0.10[0.091-0.12];标准化均方根残差=0.049),最扩展的 TPB(包括财务匮乏和食品不安全)显示出最佳拟合度(χ/自由度=3.3;比较拟合指数=0.95;近似值的均方根误差[95%置信区间],0.050[0.035-0.065];标准化均方根残差=0.018)。所有 5 个结构模型解释了意图的约 42%至 43%的方差;然而,扩展的 TPB 模型,包括食品不安全和/或财务匮乏,更好地解释了饮食质量的差异(约 22%),而传统 TBP 则更好地解释了饮食质量的差异(约 7%),表明这些模型更好地解释了饮食质量的差异。
这些发现强调了考虑与健康饮食相关的财务障碍(如财务匮乏或食品不安全)的重要性,以更好地理解较低社会经济群体中个体的饮食行为。