Next Article in Journal
Effect of Chair Yoga Therapy on Functional Fitness and Daily Life Activities among Older Female Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis in Taiwan: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Previous Article in Journal
An Emerging Health Crisis in Turkey and Syria after the Earthquake Disaster on 6 February 2023: Risk Factors, Prevention and Management of Infectious Diseases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/healthcare11071023
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development and Validation of the Osteoporosis Knowledge, Attitude, and Behaviors Questionnaire for Female Osteoporosis Patients in Taiwan: A Mediation Model

by
I-Chin Huang
1,
Hui-Chuan Wu
1,
Chih-Lung Lin
2 and
Hsiu-Hung Wang
1,*
1
College of Nursing, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan
2
College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(7), 1023; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11071023
Submission received: 6 February 2023 / Revised: 8 March 2023 / Accepted: 30 March 2023 / Published: 3 April 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research develops the Osteoporosis Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviors Questionnaire (OKABQ) with the intent to evaluate the levels of osteoporosis knowledge, attitude and behavior change by developing and validating the OKABQ while establishing a mediation model of the research. A quantitative, descriptive and instrumental study was conducted in two phases: Phase I—development of the scale through Delphi Method by osteoporosis experts; and Phase II—evaluation of the validity and reliability of the scale and construction of a mediation model using SmartPLS. In Phase I, the content validity index (CVI) of the questionnaire was higher than 0.96 and the inter-rater reliability (IRR) kappa was 1.00. In Phase II, exploratory factor analysis showed that two predominating factors of attitude as a mediation were addressed by the 26-item OKABQ. The indirect effect results from the estimated model indicate that attitude mediates the relationship between knowledge and behaviors (β = 0.114, t = 2.627, p < 0.001), which is positive and statistically significant. We concluded that the OKABQ is a valid measure of osteoporosis knowledge, attitudes and behaviors for women with osteoporosis. These assessment results could assist healthcare providers in mitigating insufficiency in health education and help patients better adapt to a more active bone-healthy lifestyle.

1. Introduction

Osteoporosis is a major health issue in geriatrics and epidemiology, and occurrence of osteoporotic fractures lead to significant physical and economic burdens [1]. Approximately 200 million people are affected by osteoporosis, with 8.9 million fractures occurring each year worldwide [2]. In Europe, an estimated 32 million people suffered from osteoporosis in 2019, accounting for about 5.6% of the total European population over the age of 50, consisting of 25.5 million women (22.1%) and 6.5 million men (6.6%) [3]. In the 2017 National Health Survey Report, the prevalence of osteoporosis among people aged 20 to 64 was 4.4% (68.2% were women), rising to 21.5% among people over 65 years of age (72.8% were women) in Taiwan [4]. However, osteoporosis is four times more common in women than in men because women have bone loss at a younger age and this increases more rapidly in elderly women than in men [5]. Osteoporotic fractures result in significant medical costs, reduced quality of life, lost work time and productivity and increased mortality [6]. The ultimate goal of preventing and treating osteoporosis is to prevent fractures, and professionals need to provide patients with nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments [7]. Osteoporosis is affected by various risk factors. Positive effects include adopting a healthy lifestyle that includes exercise, dietary education (appropriate calcium intake, vitamin D supplementation) and quitting smoking and drinking [8]. Patients and family members need information and knowledge from health professionals to prevent bone fragility, and multifaceted group education has shown positive impacts and could help patients enhance their ability to manage osteoporosis [9]. Briefly written educational materials could promote knowledge and belief changes but not behavioral changes in osteoporotic women [10]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that using the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) model to conduct surveys or research is helpful for understanding the knowledge, attitudes and actual behaviors of specific groups and to communicate effectively to determine knowledge gaps, needs and problems to help plan and implement interventions [11]. Knowledge may not be the only factor that induces behavior. The result of the SEM model is that the influence of knowledge on related behaviors is indirect, and attitude is one of the moderating variables between them [12]. The KAP model is often used in public health research to explore people’s health behaviors and their changes, such as COVID-19, school education, HIV, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), diabetes and osteoporosis [13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. After formal education of osteoporosis, professionals may use scales to assess osteoporosis knowledge or health beliefs, although such scales only measure osteoporosis cogitation, without attitudes or behaviors under treatment [20]. One study conducted an osteoporosis questionnaire with Cronbach’s α = 0.79 that evaluated the KAP of osteoporosis among university students in Malaysia [19]. Although the questionnaire could determine perceptions of osteoporosis risk factors, it appears unsuitable for clinical tracking of post-treatment changes in osteoporosis patients.
In this study, we developed the Osteoporosis Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviors Questionnaire (OKABQ) to assess osteoporosis knowledge, attitudes and behaviors in patients with osteoporosis. The questionnaire was developed based on the experiences and perceptions of the sampled patients, physicians, nurses and the related literature [20,21,22], with the aim of (a) developing the preliminary version of the OKABQ, (b) constructing the validity of OKABQ and (c) verifying a mediation model.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Hypothesis

OKABQ has good psychometric properties of validity and reliability. It is used in the traditional Chinese context as an instrument for measuring the levels of osteoporosis knowledge about risk factors, attitudes toward the disease and self-efficacy for bone health behavioral change perceived in a comprehensive osteoporosis education program for osteoporotic patients. The research framework (Figure 1) indicates that the KAP model [23] was used to examine the hypothesis that attitude is a mediating variable in affecting knowledge and behaviors.

2.2. Study Design and Participants

A cross-sectional, descriptive instrument development study was designed. Throughout May 2019, the pilot study sample using convenience sampling was obtained via personalized contact of the principal investigator and the physician of the outpatient clinic at the hospital in Taiwan.
The inclusion criteria of this study were as follows: (a) being diagnosed with osteoporosis by a physician; (b) women aged 40 years or older; (c) being conscious and able to communicate in Mandarin Chinese or Taiwanese; and (d) agreeing to participate in the study after giving informed consent. Patients were excluded if they (a) had any mental illness or pregnancy; or (b) joined other interventional studies during the study period. Two phases were used to develop the OKABQ.

2.2.1. Phase I—Initial Item Pool and Pilot Study

We used the Delphi Method to identify the concepts for osteoporosis key knowledge, attitudes and behaviors with the implementation of 2 rounds [24,25]. In the 1st round, the preliminary version of the OKABQ was drafted in Mandarin Chinese and refined by 5 osteoporosis clinical researchers and physicians with expertise in bone health issues during an in-person meeting and e-mails (from August–December 2018). Osteoporosis guidelines concerning risk factors and health issues from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) were used as references [7,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. A literature review and the KAP model [35] provided the structure, the component of osteoporosis disease treatment and follow-up issues. In the 2nd round, the experts evaluated the importance of each item using a Likert scale ranging from 1, “not relevant”, to 4, “highly relevant”. After informed consent was given, the patients completed the OKABQ for item analysis and assessment of the feasibility, cost, time and associated impact of the research process. The process included comments about suitability and clarity that provided drafting or added words as revised opinions.

2.2.2. Phase IIa—Item Analysis, Assess Validity and Reliability of OKABQ

In this phase, we continued the study on the same patients to test the OKABQ between July 2019 to April 2020, having used convenience sampling to enroll osteoporotic patients by 2 researchers at the outpatient clinic. The questionnaire was provided as hard copies and collected at the same time, but a separate group of patients was randomized to take the test for reliability and validity collected 2 weeks later.
The 2nd version of the OKABQ included 34 items in a 1st-order confirmatory model. The Root-Mean-Square error of approximation (RMSEA) was used, with a null-hypothesized RMSEA ≤ 0.05, an alternative-hypothesized RMSEA of 0.08 and an anticipated effect size of 0.3, using normal α 0.05 and 80% power. Based on the assumptions, the minimum sample size was 170 to 291, and based on the model, it was tested as a close-fit version [36,37,38].

2.2.3. Phase IIb—Mediation Analysis

In this phase, we used the data to calculate the path estimation of the model and tested the hypothesis by SEM in SmartPLS [39].

2.3. Data Analysis

In phase I, all statistical analyses and data entered were performed using SPSS (Version 20). The following results indicate the questionnaire was adequate in recommending a minimum S-CVI of 0.80 [40]. The readability of the items was solicited, and the validity of the questionnaire was obtained from the statistical results.
In phase IIa, the overall internal consistency of the questionnaire was analyzed as stratified Cronbach’s α, shown as adequate in recommending >0.7 as acceptable and Kuder–Richardson-20 (KR-20) was adequate in 0–1 where higher scores indicated better internal consistency [41]. Both the test and the retest were calculated by Cronbach’s α. The homogeneity and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for temporal stability of the test–retest were evaluated; then, 2 Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) models were used to evaluate the internal structure of the OKABQ using structural equation modeling (SEM) in SmartPLS [42] and its relationships with other variables at the latent level. Composite reliability (CR) measures internal consistency reliability with a proposed threshold value for confirmative research that values > 0.80 and must not be lower than 0.60, while average variance extracted (AVE) model can measure convergent validity with a proposed threshold value of >0.50 [43].
In phase IIb, we used CFA to test the hypothesized structure and relationships among the factors to check factor loading that allowed for estimation and removal [44,45] to construct a mediation model that followed SEM and set 5000 random subsamples in bootstrapping [43]. SEM in SmartPLS is a unique method for analyzing compound path-based models and testing a theoretical framework, ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater explanatory power [46]. The effect sizes are represented by f2 [47]. Q2 values should be large than 0, representing that the model has predictive relevance [46,47,48].

2.4. Ethical Aspects

The 3-year study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (KMUHIRB-E(I)-20180317). All the participants voluntarily took part in this study and were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of all data.

3. Results

3.1. Phase I

The development of OKABQ was structured as follows (Figure 2):

3.1.1. Preparatory and Integration Period

The first version of the OKABQ was obtained from the osteoporosis clinical researchers and experts in referring to a literature review of bone health issue; it comprised three sections related to osteoporosis, knowledge, attitude and behaviors, that included 36 items.
The second round was held with a panel of experts and a pilot study. The CVI of the overall scale and the subscale were 0.99, 1.00, 1.00 and 0.96 respectively. We tested the readability and comprehension of these items by soliciting the comments of five experts and 23 patients in the pilot study (Table 1).
Two items were rephrased and merged in the pilot test. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) of two researchers indicated a kappa of 1.00, representing perfect agreement [49].

3.1.2. Construct Period

The knowledge section showed Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) was 0.61 and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.0001), representing non-fit by using factor analysis. The attitude and behavior sections used Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation to extract dimensions of the OKABQ. KMO was 0.72 and 0.64 and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.0001), indicating that these two sections were suitable for factor analysis. According to the research results, the second version of OKABQ was reduced to 34 items.

3.2. Phase IIa

3.2.1. Descriptive Analyses

In total, 262 patients with an age range from 47.2 to 96.6 and mean age of 71.7 (SD = 9.4) participated in the study (Table 1). Most had an elementary school (29.0%) level of education, were married (57.3%), were in the postmenopausal period (92.0%) and had never smoked (98.9%), but only 26.0% had a family history of osteoporosis.
Means of total scores for the knowledge, attitude and behavior sections were scored as 47.12 (SD = 6.082), 12.08 (SD = 3.034), 18.33 (SD = 2.454) and 16.71 (SD = 2.858), respectively. Based on Kelley’s derivation [50], data was separated into high and low groups consisting of the top 27% and the lower 27% extremes of the total score. Item discrimination between high and low groups was conducted using independent sample t-tests. Table 2 shows significant difference (p < 0.001) in the total score of the scale between high and low groups, with the correlation coefficient significant between 0.130–0.762 (p < 0.01).
After deleting partial items, the final version of the OKABQ (Table 3) with 26 items was as follows: knowledge (16 items), ranging from 0 to 16; attitude (five items), ranging from 0 to 20 and behaviors (five items), ranging from 0 to 20. The total score ranged from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating higher positive bone health promotion behaviors.

3.2.2. Construct Validity

Table 4 shows that Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 0.52~0.84 mean convergent validity was excellent [43]. The Fornell–Larcker criterion of attitude = 0.721 is greater than those of behaviors and knowledge revealed its discriminant validity.

3.2.3. Reliability

The reliability measures with Cronbach’s α of the overall scale and the sections of attitude and behaviors were 0.70, 0.71 and 0.61, respectively. The knowledge section presented internal consistency as the KR-20 coefficient was 0.78. This showed that the content validity and reliability of the overall scale were satisfactory but requires further validation with a larger study sample. In total, 28 patients completed the 30-day test–retest OKABQ for the second time, 2 of whom were excluded for loss of contact. The mean time between test and retest was 16.3 ± 3.9 (range, 10–30) days. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) showed good reliability.
The construct reliability and validity for the reflective index as attitude used the SmartPLS (Table 4). Table 4 illustrates that the Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.68 to 0.82, representing a satisfactory composite reliability (CR) = 0.83~0.92, indicating good internal consistency reliability [43].

3.3. Phase IIb

Estimated Model and Mediation Analysis

The mediation analysis used SmartPLS [39]. The meaningful factors of the attitude section were paying attention to bone density state (A01) and attitudes to promote bone health (A02). The behavior section factor had five items (Figure 3).
Figure 3 reveals the path model results, indicating A01 and A02 as the reflective index. The loadings and outer weights of all items show that most were significant. Although OB-05 was not significant, it was not removed because the indicator weight = −0.257 was greater than 0.02 (Table 5) [51]. The hypothesis formulated for the mediation model was confirmed (Table 6). The f2 = 0.195 of knowledge to behaviors is represented as a medium effect size. The Q2 values = 0.034 and 0.078 indicate that the model has predictive relevance. The weak R2 = 0.179 depicted that attitudes caused 17.9% of the variance in behaviors [48]. The result is a mixed model (formative and reflective) of this study.
Table 7 presents the total, indirect and direct effects for the influence of knowledge on behaviors. A direct effect is the pathway estimates of a construct to behaviors. The total effect was the sum of direct and indirect effects. The results illustrate the direct effect from knowledge to behaviors (β = 0.220, t = 2.561, p = 0.010) and the indirect effect of attitudes mediating the relationship between knowledge and behaviors (β = 0.114, t = 2.627, p < 0.001) as being positive and statistically significant.

4. Discussion

This study developed a new scale for measuring the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of osteoporotic patients, the OKABQ, which was modified from the KAP model, international guidelines and the literature review. We conducted a pilot study and scale validation using physicians, experts and osteoporosis patients. The current analyses have shown moderate total scores on the OKABQ, substantial construct validity and good test–retest substantiation.
The total scores showed a high level where more than 35.5% of the patients reported enhanced and positive behaviors for bone health, which might be influenced by the Hawthorne effect [52] and the undergoing of osteoporosis therapy. Clinicians should evaluate patients’ personal characteristics, preferences and unconscious judgements that affect their bone health issues. One clear indication is sample selection bias (volunteer bias) where patients willing to participate in research might possess more positive behaviors [53,54]; thus, volunteers were found to be healthier than non-volunteers in some reports.
The KAP model is one of the most popular and widely used models in medical practice, determining knowledge is the base of attitude toward behaviors [23]. The evidence indicates that education programs are effective in changing knowledge, beliefs and practice toward osteoporosis [55]. The knowledge section scored moderate levels similar to studies reporting low to moderate knowledge of osteoporosis [56,57,58]. Preventing osteoporosis is positively correlated with a higher education level in patients as having more opportunities to develop adequate knowledge and good attitudes toward preventing osteoporosis [59], illustrating that educators should consider educational level regarding enhancement of participants’ understanding.
During phase II, the OKABQ had good structure and validity. The model contains formative indicators (attitudes) and reflective indicators (behaviors). SEM is popular for indirect examination through a mediator process [60] and PLS offers a measurement model that incorporates formative and reflective indicators [61]. Among these, the R2 value and the path coefficients value are the main indicators for judging the quality of the model [48], where the R2 value was 0.163 to 0.179 and most of the path coefficients were significant. The attitude section had two principal components: paying attention to bone density state (A01) and attitudes to promote bone health (A02). The study showed declining bone mineral density (BMD) testing reasons were high cost, misconceptions about lifestyle management sufficient to prevent osteoporosis and poor awareness of the disease [56]. Although the WHO, IOF and bone health research suggest that having a fracture risk-assessment tool such as FRAX® to detect bone loss is advantageous [62], BMD has a reassessed recommendation that 12–24 months after starting therapy [32], it is important to understand the degree of deterioration. Promotion of bone health is about lifestyle modification for nutrition, Vitamin D, exercise and avoiding tobacco and alcohol [63]. The most trustworthy and reliable source of health information is the clinician, but patients often feel too rushed to obtain sufficient detailed information during visits [64]; accordingly, regular health educators are required to provide more comprehensive osteoporosis education in clinical settings.
The intentions toward behavior are influenced by attitudes [65] and attitude can be the boundary between knowledge and individuals’ behaviors [66]; therefore, we planned to check prediction of behaviors from attitude, but the R2 values weakly depicted attitude as causing 17.9% variance in behaviors. The attitude–behavior intra-research shows that attitudes and behaviors have mediator call behavioral intentions [67]. Our finding are consistent with previous research [12].
In this study, adding behavioral intentions and merging TPB theory [35] at the beginning of the design could increase the predictive power of attitudes on behavior. Self-efficacy has been used to establish and evaluate applications designed to improve general health [68]. The key content of osteoporosis education will form the basis of behaviors, so this section presents formative indicators. These five items can provide significant measures as formative indicators of behaviors (Figure 3) as being: “having a high-calcium diet, reduction of caffeine absorption, avoiding sunbathing, avoiding overly vigorous physical activity and avoidance of falling”. Formative indicators are observed variables as causes affect a latent variable [69], meaning if any measure increases/decreases it will positively/negatively affect latent variables (but others indicators do not change); additionally, control samples from these patients may provide validity in the future phase III study.

5. Conclusions

The OKABQ demonstrates good construct validity, reliability, test–retest agreement and perfect inter-rater agreement. Professionals could apply the OKABQ to obtain knowledge, attitude and behavior measures of patients with osteoporosis, thereby providing more holistic educational information. Nevertheless, with the influence of knowledge on behaviors, attitude plays a mediating effect, and professionals are reminded to understand patients attitudes towards osteoporosis more deeply to improve the effect of health education and case management. Patients are also required to better understand their deficiencies in these three issues concerning osteoporosis in adjusting to a more positive bone health lifestyle.

6. Limitation

There are three main limitations of the study. First, longitudinal research would be more beneficial to observe changes in the knowledge, attitude and behaviors of women with osteoporosis. Second, further studies could involve male osteoporotic patients to evaluate the applicability of the OKABQ to both genders. Finally, the mediation model should be further tested using larger sample sizes.

Author Contributions

I.-C.H.: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing-original draft. H.-C.W.: Conceptualization, investigation. C.-L.L.: Resources. H.-H.W.: Writing—review & editing, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by a three-year grant (2018–2020) from the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan (MOST 107-2314-B-037-018-MY3).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital (KMUHIRB-E(I)-20180317, 16 July 2019 revised).

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank all participating osteoporosis patients.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hernlund, E.; Svedbom, A.; Ivergård, M.; Compston, J.; Cooper, C.; Stenmark, J.; McCloskey, E.V.; Jönsson, B.; Kanis, J.A. Osteoporosis in the European Union: Medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. Arch. Osteoporos. 2013, 8, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. International Osteoporosis Foundation. Epidemiology of Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures. 2023. Available online: https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/facts-statistics/epidemiology-of-osteoporosis-and-fragility-fractures (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  3. Kanis, J.A.; Norton, N.; Harvey, N.C.; Jacobson, T.; Johansson, H.; Lorentzon, M.; McCloskey, E.V.; Willers, C.; Borgström, F. SCOPE 2021: A new scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch. Osteoporos. 2021, 16, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Health Promotion Administration. 2017 National Health Survey Report; Health promotion administration: Taipei, Taiwan, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alswat, K.A. Gender disparities in osteoporosis. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2017, 9, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Chandran, M.; Brind’Amour, K.; Fujiwara, S.; Ha, Y.C.; Tang, H.; Hwang, J.S.; Tinker, J.; Eisman, J.A. Prevalence of osteoporosis and incidence of related fractures in developed economies in the Asia Pacific region: A systematic review. Osteoporos. Int. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Tai, T.W.; Huang, C.F.; Huang, H.K.; Yang, R.S.; Chen, J.F.; Cheng, T.T.; Chen, F.P.; Chen, C.H.; Chang, Y.F.; Hung, W.C.; et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in Taiwan: 2022 update. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lems, W.F.; Raterman, H.G. Critical issues and current challenges in osteoporosis and fracture prevention. An overview of unmet needs. Ther. Adv. Musculoskelet. Dis. 2017, 9, 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Jensen, A.L.; Lomborg, K.; Wind, G.; Langdahl, B.L. Effectiveness and characteristics of multifaceted osteoporosis group education-a systematic review. Osteoporos. Int. 2014, 25, 1209–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blalock, S.J.; Currey, S.S.; DeVellis, R.F.; DeVellis, B.M.; Giorgino, K.B.; Anderson, J.J.; Dooley, M.A.; Gold, D.T. Effects of educational materials concerning osteoporosis on women’s knowledge, beliefs, and behavior. Am. J. Health Promot. 2000, 14, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. World Health Organization. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) Surveys during Cholera Vaccination Campaigns: Guidance for Oral Cholera Vaccine Stockpile Campaigns; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu, P.; Teng, M.; Han, C. How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Luo, Y.F.; Chen, L.C.; Yang, S.C.; Hong, S. Knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) toward COVID-19 pandemic among thepublic in Taiwan: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Inungu, J.; Mumford, V.; Younis, M.; Langford, S. HIV knowledge, attitudes and practices among college students in the United States. J. Health Hum. Serv. Adm. 2009, 32, 259–277. [Google Scholar]
  15. Thanavanh, B.; Harun-Or-Rashid, M.; Kasuya, H.; Sakamoto, J. Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding HIV/AIDS among male high school students in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. J. Int. AIDS Soc. 2013, 16, 17387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Almaghasla, D.; Alsayari, A.; Wahab, S.; Motaal, A. Knowledge, attitudes and practices with regard to prophetic medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 27, 352–358. [Google Scholar]
  17. Alghamdi, A.; Alaryni, A.; AlMatham, K.; Hakami, O.; Qutob, R.; Bukhari, A.; Abualnaja, A.; Aldosari, Y.; Altamimi, N.; Alshahrani, K. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of high-risk patients towards prevention and early detection of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gautam, A.; Bhatta, D.N.; Aryal, U.R. Diabetes related health knowledge, attitude and practice among diabetic patients in Nepal. BMC Endocr. Disord. 2015, 15, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Khan, Y.H.; Sarriff, A.; Khan, A.H.; Mallhi, T.H. Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) survey of osteoporosis among students of a tertiary institution in Malaysia. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2014, 13, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Sayed-Hassan, R.M.; Bashour, H.N. The reliability of the Arabic version of osteoporosis knowledge assessment tool (OKAT) and the osteoporosis health belief scale (OHBS). BMC Res. Notes 2013, 6, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kamal, S.; Mubeen, S.M.; Kamal, S.; Mubashir, S.M. Beliefs and knowledge of osteoporosis amongst female graduate students in Karachi, Pakistan: A cross-sectional study. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2021, 71, 1910–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Winzenberg, T.M.; Oldenburg, B.; Frendin, S.; Jones, G. The design of a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure osteoporosis knowledge in women: The osteoporosis knowledge assessment tool (OKAT). BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2003, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Launiala, A. How much can a KAP survey tell us about people’s knowledge, attitudes and practices? Some observations from medical anthropology research on malaria in pregnancy in Malawi. Anthropol. Matters 2009, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Boulkedid, R.; Abdoul, H.; Loustau, M.; Sibony, O.; Alberti, C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e20476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Fish, L.S.; Busby, D.M. The delphi method. Res. Methods Fam. Ther. 1996, 469, 482. [Google Scholar]
  26. International Osteoporosis Foundation. Epidemiology. 2023. Available online: https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/fragility-fractures/epidemiology (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  27. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995, 41, 1403–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. International Osteoporosis Foundation. Pathophysiology. 2023. Available online: https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/about-osteoporosis/pathophysiology (accessed on 4 January 2023).
  29. International Osteoporosis Foundation. Risk Factors. 2023. Available online: https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/about-osteoporosis/risk-factors (accessed on 4 January 2023).
  30. World Health Organization. Assessment of Fracture Risk and Its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: Report of a WHO Study Group [Meeting Held in Rome from 22 to 25 June 1992]; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  31. Taiwan Osteoporosis Association. 2021 Consensus and Guidelines on Prevention and Treatment of Adult Osteoporosis in Taiwan; Taiwan Osteoporosis Association: Hualien City, Taiwan, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  32. The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group. Clinical Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. 2021. Available online: https://www.nogg.org.uk/full-guideline (accessed on 4 January 2023).
  33. Gregson, C.L.; Armstrong, D.J.; Bowden, J.; Cooper, C.; Edwards, J.; Gittoes, N.J.L.; Harvey, N.; Kanis, J.; Leyland, S.; Low, R.; et al. UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch. Osteoporos. 2022, 17, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hsu, Y.H. Factors influencing osteoporosis prevention knowledge and behaviors among secondary osteoporosis high risk population. Master’s thesis, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2006; p. 153. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Anthoine, E.; Moret, L.; Regnault, A.; Sebille, V.; Hardouin, J.B. Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2014, 12, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Preacher, K.J.; Coffman, D.L. Computing Power and Minimum Sample Size for RMSEA [Computer Software]. 2006. Available online: https://www.quantpsy.org/rmsea/rmsea.htm (accessed on 2 February 2019).
  38. MacCallum, R.C.; Browne, M.W.; Sugawara, H.M. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol. Methods 1996, 1, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3; SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  40. Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health 2006, 29, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. DeVellis, R.F.; Thorpe, C.T. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; Sage Publications: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wong, W.K.; Dean, S.; Nair, S. Comparison between endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy by using the Lacrimal Symptom Questionnaire: A pilot study. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 2018, 32, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. (JITTA) 2010, 11, 2. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ullman, J.B. Structural equation modeling: Reviewing the basics and moving forward. J. Perssonal. Assess. 2006, 87, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Farooq, R. Role of structural equation modeling in scale development. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2016, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hallgren, K.A. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2012, 8, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kelley, T.L. The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. J. Educ. Psychol. 1939, 30, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abdulameer, S.A.; Syed Sulaiman, S.A.; Hassali, M.A.; Subramaniam, K.; Sahib, M.N. Psychometric properties of Osteoporosis Knowledge Tool and self-management behaviours among Malaysian type 2 diabetic patients. J. Community Health 2013, 38, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sedgwick, P.; Greenwood, N. Understanding the Hawthorne effect. Bmj 2015, 351, h4672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Dodge, H.H.; Katsumata, Y.; Zhu, J.; Mattek, N.; Bowman, M.; Gregor, M.; Wild, K.; Kaye, J.A. Characteristics associated with willingness to participate in a randomized controlled behavioral clinical trial using home-based personal computers and a webcam. Trials 2014, 15, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. de Souto Barreto, P.; Ferrandez, A.M.; Saliba-Serre, B. Are older adults who volunteer to participate in an exercise study fitter and healthier than nonvolunteers? The participation bias of the study population. J. Phys. Act. Health 2013, 10, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Chan, C.Y.; Subramaniam, S.; Chin, K.Y.; Ima-Nirwana, S.; Muhammad, N.; Fairus, A.; Ng, P.Y.; Aini, J.N.; Aziz, N.A.; Mohamed, N. Effect of a screening and education programme on knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding osteoporosis among Malaysians. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lulla, D.; Teo, C.W.; Shen, X.; Loi, Z.B.J.; Quek, K.W.; Lis, H.L.A.; Koh, S.A.; Chan, E.T.; Lim, S.W.C.; Low, L.L. Assessing the knowledge, attitude and practice of osteoporosis among Singaporean women aged 65 years and above at two SingHealth polyclinics. Singap. Med. J. 2021, 62, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Oba, S.; Kajiyama, N. Knowledge of osteoporosis and its associated factors among public health professionals in a municipal office in Japan. Healthcare 2022, 10, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Chelf, S.; Davis, R.E.; Bass, M.A.; Ford, M.A.; Firouzabadi, A.D.; Leo, J.T.; Nahar, V.K. Osteoporosis knowledge and health beliefs among middle-aged men and women in the Southern United States. J. Osteopath. Med. 2022, 122, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Puttapitakpong, P.; Chaikittisilpa, S.; Panyakhamlerd, K.; Nimnuan, C.; Jaisamrarn, U.; Taechakraichana, N. Inter-correlation of knowledge, attitude, and osteoporosis preventive behaviors in women around the age of peak bone mass. BMC Women’s Health 2014, 14, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Iacobucci, D. Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Abdulameer, S.A.; Syed Sulaiman, S.A.; Hassali, M.A.; Sahib, M.N.; Subramaniam, K. Psychometric properties of the Malay version of the Osteoporosis Health Belief Scale (OHBS-M) among type 2 diabetic patients. Int. J. Rheum. Dis. 2014, 17, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kanis, J.A. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 2002, 359, 1929–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jones, G.; Winzenberg, T.M.; Callisaya, M.L.; Laslett, L.L. Lifestyle modifications to improve musculoskeletal and bone health and reduce disability–A life-course approach. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2014, 28, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Noel, S.E.; Arevalo, S.P.; Mena, N.Z.; Mangano, K.; Velez, M.; Dawson-Hughes, B.; Tucker, K.L. Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and health behaviors of bone health among Caribbean Hispanic/Latino adults. Arch. Osteoporos. 2019, 14, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ajzen, I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 27–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Abdolalipour, S.; Mirghafourvand, M. Effect of education on preventive behaviors of osteoporosis in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Q. Community Health Educ. 2021, 41, 325–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kim, M.S.; Hunter, J.E. Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Commun. Res. 1993, 20, 331–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bandura, A.; Wessels, S. Self-Efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior; Ramachaudran, V.S., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; Volume 4, pp. 71–81. [Google Scholar]
  69. Diamantopoulos, A.; Winklhofer, H.M. Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Healthcare 11 01023 g001 550
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Healthcare 11 01023 g001
Healthcare 11 01023 g002 550
Figure 2. The procedure for the development of the OKABQ.
Figure 2. The procedure for the development of the OKABQ.
Healthcare 11 01023 g002
Healthcare 11 01023 g003 550
Figure 3. Path model of the OKHBQ using SmartPLS.
Figure 3. Path model of the OKHBQ using SmartPLS.
Healthcare 11 01023 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of participants of phase I and phase II.
Table 1. Characteristics of participants of phase I and phase II.
CharacteristicsPhase I (n = 23)Phase II (n = 262)
Age74.2 ± 10.571.7 ± 9.4
Education
Illiteracy2 (8.7%)31 (11.8%)
Elementary school13 (56.6%)76 (29.0%)
Junior high school3 (13.0%)43 (16.4%)
Senior high school3 (13.0%)67 (25.6%)
University2 (8.7%)35 (13.4%)
Graduate school0 (0.0%)10 (3.8%)
Dietary
Mainly meat-based13 (56.5%)24.1 (91.9%)
Vegan6 (26.1%)13 (5.0%)
Vegetarian4 (17.4%)8 (3.1%)
Marriage
Partner 4 (17.4%)11 (4.2%)
Married7 (30.4%)150 (57.3%)
Widowed11 (47.9%)93 (35.5%)
Divorced1 (4.3%)8 (3.0%)
Menstrual condition
Climacteric period0 (0.0%)4 (1.5%)
Postmenopausal period20 (87.0%)241 (92.0%)
Hysterectomy or ovariectomy3 (13.0%)17 (6.5%)
Smoking
Never21 (91.4%)259 (98.9%)
Ever smoked1 (4.3%)2 (0.8%)
Current smoking1 (4.3%)1 (0.4%)
Family history of osteoporosis1 (4.3%)68 (26.0%)
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of total scores and subscales, mean differences between high and low groups of total score (n = 262).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of total scores and subscales, mean differences between high and low groups of total score (n = 262).
ItemsGroupnMeanSDt-ValueCorrelation to Total Scale
Total scoresLow Group7038.814.810−23.853 **1
High Group7153.031.320
Knowledge scoresLow Group709.033.097−13.274 **0.762 *
High Group7114.391.368
OA-01Low Group703.310.925−5.522 **0.460 *
High Group713.940.232
OA-02Low Group703.400.788−5.622 **0.517 *
High Group713.960.264
OA-06Low Group702.960.999−8.733 **0.601 *
High Group714.000.000
OA-07Low Group702.731.089−9.603 **0.564 *
High Group713.990.119
OA-10Low Group703.340.866−5.967 **0.499 *
High Group713.970.167
OB-01Low Group702.341.034−7.488 **0.482 *
High Group713.460.714
OB-04Low Group703.700.922−1.689 **0.130 *
High Group713.900.384
OB-05Low Group702.471.259−6.495 **0.378 *
High Group713.620.781
OB-06Low Group701.891.518−9.974 **0.593 *
High Group713.820.568
OB-08Low Group703.640.762−3.530 **0.307 *
High Group713.970.167
* p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. The final version of OKABQ.
Table 3. The final version of OKABQ.
1. Knowledge
ItemsYesNoNot sure
1. Osteoporosis causes bone loss and fractures easily.
2. Only women develop osteoporosis. *
3. Bone density does not change with age. *
4. To sit up comfortably, choosing a lower chair or cushion is fine. *
5. Obvious symptoms of osteoporosis will appear in the early stage. *
6. Drinking more than three cups of black coffee, strong tea and carbonated beverages a day will increase bone loss.
7. Vitamin D promotes calcium absorption.
8. Healthy bone isn’t affected by sun exposure.
9. Bone loss is accelerated in menopausal women due to a decrease in female hormones.
10. Dietary habits are not associated with osteoporosis. *
11. Adequate intake of calcium-containing foods can prevent osteoporosis.
12. Speed walking or jogging can help bone formation.
13. Once having bone loss, diet, exercise, calcium lactate or medication cannot prevent osteoporosis from getting worse. *
14. Excessive smoking or drinking can increase bone loss.
15. Excessively carried weight and a long-term slouched position will increase the burden on the lumbar spine.
16. Osteoporosis is not associated with familial inheritance. *
2. Attitude
ItemsStrongly agreeAgree Slight agreeDisagree Strongly disagree
1. I think it is important to have bone mass measurement regularly.
2. I think that we should pay more attention to bone density with age.
3. I think that increasing the time and frequency of sun exposure is helpful for bone health.
4. I think smoking or drinking can damage bone health.
5. I think following the health education of doctors or educator is very helpful for bone health.
3. Behaviors
ItemsAchievement
100%75%50%25%0%
1. I follow a high-calcium diet (such as milk, meats and protein, dried clove fish, green vegetables) every day.
2. I don’t drink more than three cups of black coffee, strong tea or carbonated drinks every day.
3. I enjoy the sunshine at least 10 min every day.
4. I have at least 30 min of physical activity three days a week.
5. I pay attention to safety in daily life to avoid falling.
* Reverse question.
Table
Table 4. The construct validity and reliability of the OKABQ.
Table 4. The construct validity and reliability of the OKABQ.
Cronbach’s αComposite ReliabilityAverage Variance Extracted (AVE)
A010.8150.9150.844
A020.6880.8280.616
Attitude0.7670.8440.520
Knowledge *1.0001.0001.000
* As the behaviors section used informative index and the knowledge section was calculated to one continuous variable, they could not meet the calculation method.
Table
Table 5. The loadings and outer weights of all items.
Table 5. The loadings and outer weights of all items.
ConstructsItemsLoadingsWeightsMeanStandard Deviation (stdev)t-Valuep Values
A01OA-010.909 0.9070.02931.537 ***0.000
OA-020.928 0.9290.01369.672 ***0.000
A02OA-060.799 0.7990.03224.858 ***0.000
OA-070.789 0.7880.03920.021 ***0.000
OA-100.766 0.7660.05414.077 ***0.000
AttitudeOA-010.717 0.7180.05612.765 ***0.000
OA-020.801 0.8010.03721.695 ***0.000
OA-060.715 0.7130.04615.474 ***0.000
OA-070.655 0.6560.05711.532 ***0.000
OA-100.709 0.7100.06510.899 ***0.000
BehaviorsOB-01 0.5090.4830.1483.44 **0.001
OB-04 0.2790.2580.1342.078 *0.038
OB-05 0.2570.2490.1911.3430.179
OB-06 0.6640.6340.1723.852 ***0.000
OB-08 0.4400.4080.1702.585 *0.010
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 6. Path coefficients of the model.
Table 6. Path coefficients of the model.
DVIVBetaMeanStandard Deviation (STDEV)t-Valuep Valuesf2Q2R2
BehaviorsAttitude0.2830.2890.0913.1080.0020.0820.0340.179
Knowledge0.2200.2280.0862.5610.0100.195--
AttitudeKnowledge0.4040.4040.0626.5220.0000.0490.0780.163
Table
Table 7. Total effect, indirect effect and direct effect for the model.
Table 7. Total effect, indirect effect and direct effect for the model.
BetaMean(STDEV)t-Valuep Values2.5%97.5%
Total effect
Knowledge → Behaviors0.3340.3460.0694.8120.0000.2020.461
Indirect effect
Knowledge →Attitude → Behaviors0.1140.1180.0442.6270.0090.0330.205
Direct effect
Knowledge → Behaviors0.2200.2280.0862.5610.0100.0540.383
Note: Bootstrap 5000 times, Bias-corrected percentile confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Huang, I.-C.; Wu, H.-C.; Lin, C.-L.; Wang, H.-H. Development and Validation of the Osteoporosis Knowledge, Attitude, and Behaviors Questionnaire for Female Osteoporosis Patients in Taiwan: A Mediation Model. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11071023

AMA Style

Huang I-C, Wu H-C, Lin C-L, Wang H-H. Development and Validation of the Osteoporosis Knowledge, Attitude, and Behaviors Questionnaire for Female Osteoporosis Patients in Taiwan: A Mediation Model. Healthcare. 2023; 11(7):1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11071023

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huang, I-Chin, Hui-Chuan Wu, Chih-Lung Lin, and Hsiu-Hung Wang. 2023. "Development and Validation of the Osteoporosis Knowledge, Attitude, and Behaviors Questionnaire for Female Osteoporosis Patients in Taiwan: A Mediation Model" Healthcare 11, no. 7: 1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11071023

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop