Page 63 - Zero for nine: Reducing alcohol use during pregnancy via health counselling and Internet-based computer-tailored feedback

Information factors
Received advice from pregnant spouse that abstinence from prenatal alcohol use is desirable
Received advice from midwife that abstinence from prenatal alcohol use is desirable
Received advice from pregnant spouse that support to abstain from prenatal alcohol use is needed
Received advice from midwife that support to abstain from prenatal alcohol use is needed
Awareness factors
Knowledge Perceived likelihood Perceived severity
67.5%
57.0%
6.8%
9.3%
5.01 (1.82) 2.12 (1.30) 2.38 (1.21)
56.2%
43.8%
4.7%
1.6%
4.70 (1.89) 1.67 (1.09) 1.94 (1.10)
71.7% 5.07*
61.8% 6.24*
7.5% 0.59
12.1% 6.21*
5.12 (1.79) 2.29 (1.33) 2.55 (1.21)
3
Partner support to prevent prenatal alcohol us
Table 3.1 (continued). Differences in predisposing, information and awareness factors between respondents low (N = 64) versus high (N = 173) in partner support
Characteristic
Overall
Partner support
Chi- square test
Chi- square test for trend
t-test
Low
High
χ2
χ2TREND
t
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < .001.
First, respondents reporting high support perceived more advantages (high M = 4.02; low M = 3.28) and fewer disadvantages (high M = 1.47; low M = 1.81) of providing support than respondents reporting low support. In addition, the respondents reporting high support were more convinced that partner support was the social norm among friends and family (high M = 4.00; low M = 2.82), were more exposed to social modelling (high M = 4.13; low M = 3.41) and were more socially encouraged to provide support (high M = 3.26; low M = 2.60) compared to the respondents reporting low support. Finally, respondents reporting high support had more self-efficacy compared to respondents reporting low support (high M = 4.26; low M = 3.94). This significant difference
1.57 3.65 *** 3.55 ***
61