Dataset Information

The effect of Pender’s model on nutrition behavior

ABSTRACT: Intervention 1: intervention group divided to 2 groups and took part in 2 training sessions with focus on perceived efficacy, perceived barriers and profits. After 3 months, they completed questionnaire again during this time we reminded them with SMS or electronic massages. Intervention 2: In control group wasn’t done any intervention at the same time (of interventions for intervention group). After completion the interventions data and information will be analyzed and pretest and post test results for both groups will be compared and if it be positive same intervention will be done for control group.;Prevention;Prevention;intervention group divided to 2 groups and took part in 2 training sessions with focus on perceived efficacy, perceived barriers and profits. After 3 months, they completed questionnaire again during this time we reminded them with SMS or electronic massages.;In control group wasn’t done any intervention at the same time (of interventions for intervention group). After completion the interventions data and information will be analyzed and pretest and post test results for both groups will be compared and if it be positive same intervention will be done for control group. Primary outcome(s): Preventable nutrition behavior. Timepoint: before intervention and 3 months after intervention. Method of measurement: researcher-made questionnaire. Study Design: Randomization: Randomized, Blinding: Not blinded, Placebo: Not used, Assignment: Parallel, Purpose: Prevention.

DISEASE(S): Family History Of Malignant Neoplasm Of Digestive Organs,Cancer

PROVIDER: 2487735 | ecrin-mdr-crc |

REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Intervention 1: One group in the study will receive educational intervention. Educational content provided to the intervention group includes an app that is designed based on preventive health model, and an educational pamphlet about colorectal cancer, the importance of screening and a variety of colorectal cancer screening methods. Intervention 2: Control group: One group as a control group will enter the study, that will not receive any training and intervention. Primary outcome(s): Perceived self-efficacy. Timepoint: 2 months after the beginning of the study. Method of measurement: Colorectal screening questionnaire.;Perceived sensitivity. Timepoint: 2 months after the beginning of the study. Method of measurement: Colorectal screening questionnaire.;Worries and fears. Timepoint: 2 months after the beginning of the study. Method of measurement: Colorectal screening questionnaire.;Screening Effectiveness. Timepoint: 2 months after the beginning of the study. Method of measurement: Colorectal screening questionnaire.;Social support. Timepoint: 2 months after the beginning of the study. Method of measurement: Colorectal screening questionnaire.;Behavioral intention. Timepoint: 2 months after the beginning of the study. Method of measurement: Colorectal screening questionnaire. Study Design: Randomization: Randomized, Blinding: Not blinded, Placebo: Not used, Assignment: Single, Purpose: Screening, Randomization description: Samples were randomly selected from 2 centers by block sampling method and samples of both groups will be matched based on demographic variables such as age, education, and so on. Random assignment of selected individuals will be done by block random method using quad blocks. For two groups of intervention and comparison use two letters A and B. So the size of each block is twice the number of groups, that is, the number 4. By dividing the sample size by block size, the number of blocks is determined. Sample size is 160 people. Each group consists of 80 people, and the number of blocks in each group is 20 blocks, each of which specifies the assignment of 4 individuals. Finally, all letters A and B are separated, and each person who is not the researcher, by lot, will be suspended by each letter in a group. For example, A intervention group

Project description:Intervention 1: Intervention group1: Interventions included holding educational sessions, distribution of educational aids tools such as pamphlet, film and free access to fecal occult blood test. Intervention 2: Intervention group2: Interventions included holding educational sessions, distribution of educational aids tools such as pamphlet and film. Intervention 3: Intervention group3: free access to fecal occult blood test. Intervention 4: Control group: For the control group will not perform any of the action that will be taken for the intervention group.;Prevention;Prevention;Prevention;Prevention;Intervention group1: Interventions included holding educational sessions, distribution of educational aids tools such as pamphlet, film and free access to fecal occult blood test;Intervention group2: Interventions included holding educational sessions, distribution of educational aids tools such as pamphlet and film;Intervention group3: free access to fecal occult blood test;Control group: For the control group will not perform any of the action that will be taken for the intervention group. Primary outcome(s): Perceived severity. Timepoint: Before and 4 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Questionnaire.;Knowledge. Timepoint: Before and 4 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Questionnaire.;Perceived susceptibility. Timepoint: Before and 4 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Questionnaire.;Intention. Timepoint: Before and 4 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Questionnaire.;Perceived barriers. Timepoint: Before and 4 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Questionnaire.;Social support. Timepoint: Before and 4 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Questionnaire.;Self efficacy. Timepoint: Before and 4 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Questionnaire.;Perceived benefits. Timepoint: Before and 4 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Questionnaire. Study Design: Randomization: Randomized, Blinding: Not blinded, Placebo: Not used, Assignment: Parallel, Purpose: Screening.

Project description:Beneficial effects of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 FAs) are generally well-known from epidemiological studies, but the various mechanisms of action are not completely clarified. Regulation of gene expression is one known mechanism of action, but only very limited data of regulated pathways in humans after n-3 FA supplementation are available. Up to now, no studies compared gene expression changes after n-3 FA supplementation between normolipidemic and dyslipidemic subjects. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of n-3 FA administration on whole genome expression profiles in the blood of normo- and dyslipidemic subjects. We conducted an intervention study with normo- and dyslipidemic men aged between 29 and 51 years, which were subdivided into four groups with a balanced age distribution and randomized to either six fish oil capsules per day providing 1.5 g docosahexaenoic acid and 1.0 g eicosapentaenoic acid or corn oil capsules rich in linoleic acid per day for a period of 12 weeks. Venous blood samples were collected at baseline as well as after 4 hours, 1 week and 12 weeks of supplementation. For each investigation time point, the samples of each group were pooled together to minimize inter-individual variability. All subjects have successfully completed the study, but for the microarray experiments, nine subject samples were excluded. Therefore, the microarray experiments are based on the following group characteristics: normolipidemic fish oil group (FO-N): pool of nine RNAs from normolipidemic subjects supplemented with fish oil; normolipidemic corn oil group (CO-N): pool of six RNAs from normolipidemic subjects supplemented with corn oil; dyslipidemic corn oil group (CO-D): pool of eight RNAs from dyslipidemic subjects supplemented with corn oil; dyslipidemic fish oil group (FO-D): pool of nine RNAs from dyslipidemic subjects supplemented with fish oil. The twenty normolipidemic and the twenty dyslipidemic subjects were subdivided into two groups. Thus, a total of four groups with ten men per group passed through the study. To realize a comparable mean age between groups, the formation of groups was performed by stratified allocation according to subject's age. The four study groups were randomly assigned to different study products by an uninvolved collaborator. Subjects ingested either six FO or six corn oil (CO) capsules per day for a period of twelve weeks. The daily n-3 PUFA intake via FO capsules was 2.7 g (1.14 g DHA and 1.56 g EPA). The predominant FA of the CO capsules was the omega-6 (n-6) PUFA linoleic acid (LA, 18:2n-6). Thus, the daily LA intake via CO capsules was 3.05 g LA. The subjects were instructed to ingest the capsules together with food, three in the morning and three in the evening, and to maintain their usual exercise and dietary habits throughout the intervention time. As an exception, at the first intervention day, all six capsules were ingested at the same time in the morning after a standardised breakfast. During each visit, fasting blood samples were collected by venepuncture. Additionally, participants completed a questionnaire to obtain information about changes in medication, dietary (e.g., changes in weekly fish intake, preferred fish dishes or species, respectively) and lifestyle habits (e.g., physical activity), as well as the tolerability of the capsules. This record summarizes the results of 16 microarrays. The samples originate from whole blood of normo- and dyslipidemic subjects supplemented with either fish oil or corn oil for 4 h, 1 week and 12 weeks. Microarrays were hybridized in a loop design with one common reference using a dye-swap approach.

Dataset Information

The effect of Pender’s model on nutrition behavior

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets