Page 65 - Zero for nine: Reducing alcohol use during pregnancy via health counselling and Internet-based computer-tailored feedback

Partner support to prevent prenatal alcohol us
Table 3.2 (continued). Motivational and intentional differences between respondents low (N = 64) versus high (N = 173) in partner support
Characteristic
Overall
Partner support
t-test
Low
High
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
t
Social modeling
3.97 (0.93)
3.41 (1.08)
4.13 (0.82)
3.88 ***
My friends support their partner to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy
My family supports their partner to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy
Social encouragement
My friends encourage me to support my partner to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy
My family encourages me to support my partner to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy
Self efficacy
I find it difficult to support my partner to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy when...
... my partner craves for alcohol
... my partner has not had a drink for a long time
... my partner and I are in a café or restaurant
... my partner and I have something to celebrate
... I have an argument with my partner
... I long for a drink myself
... I am stressed
... I am tired
Intention
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < .001.
3.95 (0.98) 4.00 (0.95)
3.09 (1.18)
3.05 (1.22) 3.14 (1.21)
4.18 (0.82)
4.04 (1.12) 4.19 (0.92)
4.12 (1.02) 4.02 (1.07)
4.39 (0.79) 4.16 (0.99) 4.30 (0.87) 4.32 (0.84)
4.50 (1.17)
3.43 (1.12) 3.44 (1.10)
2.60 (1.23)
2.63 (1.25) 2.63 (1.23)
3.94 (0.91)
3.76 (1.11) 3.83 (1.00)
3.89 (1.05) 3.79 (1.08)
4.24 (0.93) 3.96 (1.10) 4.13 (0.96) 4.11 (0.99)
3.67 (1.66)
4.10 (0.88) 3.35 **
4.16 (0.84) 3.82 ***
3.26 (1.11) 3.47 3 **
3.19 (1.18) 2.73 **
3.32 (1.16) 3.52 **
4.26 (0.78) 2.38 *
4.13 (1.11) 1.88
4.29 (0.87) 2.89 **
4.20 (1.00) 1.78 4.10 (1.06) 1.73
4.44 (0.73) 1.41 4.23 (0.94) 1.66 4.35 (0.84) 1.50 4.39 (0.77) 1.96
4.81 (0.72) 5.29 ***
Lastly, respondents reporting high support had a stronger intention to support their partner to abstain from alcohol during the remainder of the pregnancy compared to respondents reporting low support (high M = 4.81; low M = 3.67).
63