Next Article in Journal
Influence of Visible Violet, Blue and Red Light on the Development of Cataract in Porcine Lenses
Previous Article in Journal
Endodontic Rotary Files, What Should an Endodontist Know?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Affecting Nurses’ Health Promotion Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic Based on the Information–Motivation–Behavioral Skills Model

1
Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju 52727, Korea
2
Department of Nursing, College of Nursing, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61469, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2022, 58(6), 720; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060720
Submission received: 19 April 2022 / Revised: 23 May 2022 / Accepted: 26 May 2022 / Published: 27 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Epidemiology & Public Health)

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a major threat to nurses’ health. This study aimed to investigate the factors affecting nurses’ health promotion behaviors during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Material and Methods: The participants were clinical nurses who had direct contact with patients at a university hospital in G province, Korea. Data were collected from March 16 to April 16, 2021, and the final analysis included data from 162 nurses. The general and lifestyle characteristics of the participants were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the effect on health promotion behavior was analyzed using multiple regression with SPSS/WIN 21.0. Results: The results showed that the factors influencing nurses’ health promotion behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic were social support (β = 0.40, p < 0.001), self-efficacy (β = 0.27, p = 0.014), being married (β = 0.18, p = 0.018), having good health (β = 0.31, p < 0.001), and not skipping meals (β = 0.20, p = 0.001). The explanatory power of the variables was 51.4%. Therefore, health promotion programs to promote social support and self-efficacy are needed to improve nurses’ health promotion behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: These results indicate that the development of additional management strategies for health promotion among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic is necessary. It is necessary to prepare organizational policies and manage self-care to improve nurses’ irregular eating habits during the ongoing pandemic.

1. Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new infectious disease that was first reported in Hubei Province, China, in December 2019 [1]. Global confirmed cases have surpassed 3.4 billion and new variants of the disease continue to emerge [2]. As the resurgence of COVID-19 accelerates worldwide, countries are facing multiple challenges in responding to the pandemic due to difficulties in core quarantine requirements, such as fast diagnosis, patient isolation, and contact management [3]. Thus, the spread of local outbreaks and the increase in deaths are expected to continue for a while [1,2,3].
Health care workers are responsible for attending to suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19 [4]. Nurses, in particular, are highly vulnerable to infection because they have the most direct contact with patients and caregivers. Furthermore, the associated psychological difficulties can affect their health promotion behavior [5]. In particular, frontline nurses who care for and stay in close contact with suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases experience physical and psychological distress due to sleep disorders, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress [6]. Nurses are role models for patients; hence, their health promotion is significant as it affects both their own and their patients’ lifestyles [7].
The information–motivation–behavioral skills (IMB) model is widely used to understand and promote health-related behavior [8]. The IMB model includes three primary constructs that influence behavioral changes: information and knowledge about the behavior, an individual’s motivation to perform the behavior, and the behavioral skills necessary to perform the behavior [9]. Being informed is directly related to and is a significant determinant of health-related behaviors [8,9]; thus, it is crucial in health promotion behaviors, such as disease prevention [10]. A study on the factors affecting the health promotion behavior of university students reported that knowledge had a strong and positive correlation with health promotion behavior and that providing knowledge was essential for changing health perception and behavior [11]. Therefore, understanding and using correct information on health practices and infection prevention are necessary to promote health-related behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Motivation is another determinant of health promotion behavior and can be divided into personal and social motivation [9,12]. Personal motivation refers to individual attitudes and beliefs, and social motivation is the perception of and social support for subjective norms [13]. A previous study on nurses reported that attitudes affect preventive health promotion behaviors [14]. In particular, the attitude of frontline nurses caring for patients with COVID-19 may influence their health promotion behavior. Among social motivations, social support is a positive resource that an individual can obtain from their relationships [15], with many health care workers reporting that they could endure and overcome difficulties in fighting COVID-19 through the support of family members and colleagues [16]. Numerous studies have also concluded that social support is a major variable influencing health promotion behavior.
In the IMB model, behavioral skills refer to the confidence that an individual can successfully perform the behavior required to produce a specific outcome with self-efficacy [17]. Even information-savvy and highly motivated individuals need skills and the confidence to practice them on their own to effectively perform preventive and management behaviors in daily life [18]. Therefore, self-efficacy is closely related to health promotion behavior, and the higher the self-efficacy, the better the health promotion behavior [19]. A study on shift workers reported that self-efficacy directly motivates health promotion behavior and affects the continuation of the behavior [20]. Therefore, self-efficacy is a significant factor for nurses to engage in health promotion behaviors successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Meanwhile, the long-term impact of COVID-19 can lead to chronic stress, and nurses caring for COVID-19 patients may experience traumatic events [21]. The frequency and intensity of exposure to such events can have a significant impact on post-traumatic stress [22]. This secondary traumatic stress can affect nurses’ health promotion behavior and result in adverse effects on patients, such as neglecting or avoiding patients’ needs [23]. However, there is a lack of research on the impact of these psychological factors on nurses’ health promotion behaviors as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. Therefore, this study model sets the COVID-19 pandemic, a specific environmental and personal characteristic factor, and secondary traumatic stress as independent variables that can affect health promotion behavior. Each factor can have a direct or indirect effect, but this study assumes that they directly affect health promotion behaviors.
Based on these assumptions, this study aimed to provide basic data to improve nurses’ health promotion behavior by applying the IMB model to identify factors affecting their health promotion behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. The detailed purposes of this study are as follows:
(1)
Identify knowledge of COVID-19, attitude toward COVID-19 infection, social support, self-efficacy, secondary traumatic stress, and health promotion behavior of nurses.
(2)
Identify the differences in health promotion behaviors according to the general and lifestyle characteristics of nurses.
(3)
Identify the correlation between nurses’ knowledge of COVID-19, attitude toward COVID-19 infection, social support, self-efficacy, secondary traumatic stress, and health promotion behavior.
(4)
Identify the factors affecting health promotion progress among nurses.

2. Method

2.1. Research Design

This descriptive correlational study investigated the factors affecting nurses’ health promotion behaviors.

2.2. Participants and Data Collection

The participants were clinical nurses working at a tertiary university hospital in G City, Korea. The hospital serves as a medical center for the entire western Gyeongsangnam-do region of Korea, with numerous general hospitals clustered around it. The hospital has approximately 900 beds, and the staff comprised 313 doctors and 954 nurses at the time of this study. Data were collected from March 16 to April 16, 2021, in compliance with the social distancing measures and quarantine guidelines of Korea. The criteria for the selection of participants for this study were as follows: (1) nurses working at a tertiary general hospital, (2) nurses ranked below the head nurse, and (3) nurses who had been working in the hospital for 12 months. Only those who read the guidelines and agreed to participate in this study took part. The minimum sample size, including six predictors, was 146 nurses, based on a significance level (α) of 0.05, a power (1-β) of 0.95, and an effect size of 0.15 for a two-sided multiple linear regression analysis using G*power 3.1.7 (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany). Considering a 20% dropout rate, 175 copies were distributed and 164 copies were collected. The final analysis used data from 162 copies, excluding two with incomplete answers.

2.3. Research Tools

The measurement tools were self-report questionnaires on general characteristics, knowledge of COVID-19, attitude toward COVID-19 infection, social support, self-efficacy, secondary traumatic stress, and health promotion behavior.

2.3.1. Sociodemographic and Lifestyle Characteristics

Sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, marital status, family to take care of, educational level, disabilities or health problems, and perceived health status) and lifestyle characteristics (i.e., walking, sleep disruptions, number of times meals are skipped, stress management) were collected using a structured questionnaire.

2.3.2. Knowledge about COVID-19

Knowledge about COVID-19 was measured by modifying and supplementing the prevention guidelines of the tool developed by Yoon [24]. Example items included the following: “COVID-19 vaccines have not been developed yet,” “For upper respiratory tract specimens, either an oropharyngeal swab or a nasopharyngeal swab is collected and placed in a single virus receiving medium,” and “Patients are released from quarantine when 48 h have elapsed after all their symptoms have disappeared and when all PCR test results are negative (conducted twice, 24 h apart).” The final tool consisted of 21 questions. Scores ranged from 0 to 21 (an incorrect answer received 0 and a correct answer received 1), with a higher score indicating a higher knowledge level. The reliability of this study was KR = 0.71.

2.3.3. Attitude toward COVID-19 Infection

Attitude toward COVID-19 infection refers to the feeling or perception with regard to COVID-19. This was measured using a tool developed by Park [25], which was modified and supplemented by Choi and Lee [26]. It consists of 12 items scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the more positive the attitude toward COVID-19 infection, which meant greater compliance with COVID-19 response guidelines. In this study, Cronbach’s α for this tool was 0.80.

2.3.4. Social Support

Social support refers to positive resources that an individual can derive from interpersonal relationships. Social support was measured using a tool adapted and modified by Yang [27] based on the Social Provisions Scale developed by Cutrona and Russell [28]. It consists of 20 items scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the social support from colleagues. In this study, Cronbach’s α for this tool was 0.94.

2.3.5. Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to the belief that an individual can successfully perform the behavior required to produce a certain outcome. Self-efficacy was measured using a tool modified and supplemented by Jung [29], based on the self-efficacy scale developed by Sherer and Maddux [30]. It consists of 17 items scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). In this study, Cronbach’s α for this tool was 0.95.

2.3.6. Secondary Traumatic Stress

Secondary traumatic stress is a measure of the impact on an individual who has indirectly experienced trauma. Secondary traumatic stress was measured using the Korean version of the secondary traumatic stress scale adapted and modified by Park [31], based on the original version developed by Bride et al. [32]. It consists of 13 items scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the secondary traumatic stress. In this study, Cronbach’s α for this tool was 0.88.

2.3.7. Health Promotion Behavior

Health promotion behavior refers to a positive approach toward health for maintaining or enhancing the optimal well-being of an individual or group, self-actualization, and individual self-esteem. Health promotion behavior was measured using the tool developed by Kim et al. [33]. It consists of 15 items scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the level of health promotion behavior. In this study, Cronbach’s α for this tool was 0.82.

2.4. Data Analysis Method

The general and lifestyle characteristics of the participants were analyzed using descriptive statistics with SPSS/WIN 21.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). The differences in health promotion behavior according to general and lifestyle characteristics were confirmed by an independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance. Post hoc testing was performed using Scheffé’s test. Variables affecting health promotion behavior were examined using Pearson’s correlation coefficient and multiple regression analysis.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board of G-University Hospital in G-Province (approval number: GNUH 2021-01-023-002). Informed consent was obtained from the head of the participating hospital after explaining the purpose and procedures of this study. The participants who completed the questionnaires received small gifts.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

3.1.1. General Characteristics

A total of 162 participated in this study. The mean and standard deviation of health promotion behavior scores are shown in Table 1. Of these, 155 (3.41 ± 1.11) were women and 7 (3.30 ± 0.53) were men. In terms of education, 147 (3.31 ± 0.57) had a college degree or lower, and 15 (3.29 ± 0.45) had a master’s degree or higher. In terms of health problems, 118 (3.26 ± 0.53) participants answered that they had health problems, whereas 44 (3.45 ± 0.62) said that they were healthy. We further inquired about the specific disability or health problem that these 118 participants had and found the following: neck/back pain (77), sleep disorders (40), emotional problems (15), eye/vision problems (14), and other (13) (see further disabilities or health problems in Supplement Table S1). In terms of the number of hospital visits per month, 58 participants answered that they visited the hospital at least once per month. An independent-samples t-test was performed to verify the differences in health promotion behaviors according to participant characteristics. The general characteristics that showed significant differences in health promotion behavior were marital status (t = −2.04, p = 0.043) and health status (t = 3.89, p < 0.001).

3.1.2. Lifestyle Characteristics of the Participants

Table 2 shows the lifestyle characteristics of the participants. In terms of physical activity (walking for more than 20 min), 40 (3.48 ± 0.58) participants reported that they walked more than thrice a week, 70 (3.34 ± 0.51) walked less than twice a week, and 52 (3.13 ± 0.57) did not walk for the given duration at all. A total of 39 participants (3.41 ± 0.60) reported no sleep disruptions, 70 (3.32 ± 0.54) experienced sleep disruptions less than twice a week, and 53 (3.22 ± 0.56) reported sleep disruptions more than three times a week. With regard to the frequency of skipping meals, 17 (3.60 ± 0.66) answered never, 58 (3.39 ± 0.55) answered less than twice a week, and 87 (3.19 ± 0.52) chose more than three times a week. Regarding lack of rest, 15 participants (3.57 ± 0.70) answered that they had no lack of rest, 46 (3.37 ± 0.50) answered less than twice a week, and 101 (3.24 ± 0.55) answered more than three times a week. In terms of stress management, 98 (3.23 ± 0.57) were unable to manage stress at all, 47 (3.35 ± 0.49) answered less than twice a week, and 17 (3.64 ± 0.58) chose more than three times a week. The lifestyle characteristics that showed differences in health promotion behavior were walking (F = 4.91, p = 0.043), number of meals skipped (F = 5.06, p = 0.007), and stress management (F = 4.18, p = 0.017).

3.2. The Correlations between Knowledge about COVID-19, Attitude toward COVID-19 Infection, Social Support, Self-Efficacy, Secondary Traumatic Stress, and Health Promotion Behavior

Table 3 shows the correlations between knowledge about COVID-19, attitude toward COVID-19, social support, self-efficacy, secondary traumatic stress, and health promotion behavior. Attitudes toward COVID-19 infection (r = 0.38, p < 0.001), self-efficacy (r = 0.54, p < 0.001), and secondary traumatic stress (r = 0.53, p < 0.001) were significantly correlated with health promotion behaviors.

3.3. Factors Affecting the Participants’ Health Promotion Behavior

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the factors affecting nurses’ health promotion behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 4 shows the results. The Durbin–Watson statistic was used to check for autocorrelation between error terms before the analysis; the results showed that there was no autocorrelation. A normal distribution was assumed for the error terms. On examining whether there is multicollinearity between the independent variables through the tolerance limit and the variance inflation factor, the tolerance limit was 0.66–0.90 (higher than 0.10), and the variance inflation factor was 1.09–1.57 (less than 10). Thus, there was no multicollinearity between the independent variables.
According to the analysis, the variables affecting health promotion behavior were social support (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) and self-efficacy (β = 0.27, p = 0.014). In other words, higher social support and self-efficacy were correlated with better health promotion behavior.
The adjusted R2 was 0.514, meaning that the measured variables explained 51.4% of the variance in health promotion behavior.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to understand the effects of knowledge about COVID-19, attitudes toward COVID-19 infection, social support, secondary traumatic stress, and self-efficacy on the health promotion behavior of nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic by applying the IMB model. After analyzing the factors influencing health promotion behavior, it was found that social support, self-efficacy, being married, good health, and not skipping meals had positive effects on health promotion behavior; the model’s explanatory power was 51.4%. Based on these results, the main findings are summarized as follows:
Among the factors influencing health promotion behavior, social support had the greatest influence on health promotion behavior; the higher the social support, the better the health promotion behavior. These results are consistent with those of other studies reporting that social support affects health promotion behavior among various groups, including correctional officers [34] and middle-aged adults [35]. A study on the relationship between social support and health promotion behavior among hospital nurses [36] also reported that social support had a positive effect on health promotion behavior, which supports the results of this study.
A survey on health care workers (COVID-19 field response teams) also found that the social support of colleagues was the driving force that allowed these workers to continue their work [34]. Frontline nurses caring for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic may experience social isolation, face tremendous responsibility, and suffer from psychological atrophy [5]. These psychological difficulties may lead to neglect of health promotion behavior. Therefore, the circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered to promote the health promotion behavior of nurses. In addition, as the social support of frontline nurses can affect patients and promote the health of individual nurses, the use of social support resources should also be considered.
After social support, self-efficacy had the greatest influence on health promotion behavior, and the higher the self-efficacy, the better the health promotion behavior. Studies on nurses [37] and nursing students [38] have also reported similar results, confirming that self-efficacy is a major factor that promotes health promotion behavior. A study on the factors affecting health promotion behavior among shift workers [20] reported that those who received health-related education exhibited high self-efficacy. In addition, the risk of receiving inaccurate information about COVID-19 lowered nurses’ self-efficacy [39]. Therefore, to increase nurses’ self-efficacy, sharing accurate knowledge and information about novel infectious diseases such as COVID-19 is crucial to prevent infections in hospitals and promote nurses’ health promotion behavior. Self-efficacy is also essential for self-care; therefore, it should be improved through health education.
Attitude toward COVID-19 infection was significantly correlated with health promotion behavior but was not an explanatory factor. A study of college students [40] reported that health beliefs about emerging infectious diseases had a significant influence on hygiene behavior, which was different from the results of this study. The results may not be consistent because this study had different participants, used other tools to measure health promotion behavior, and focused on the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, these factors should be considered when interpreting the results. It is also necessary to test for mediation effects because other studies have reported that personal motivation mediates self-efficacy [40,41].
This study expanded the IMB model’s conceptual framework to set the COVID-19 pandemic as a specific scenario and added secondary traumatic stress, a psychological factor, among the personal characteristic factors. However, although this study expected high secondary traumatic stress and a negative impact on health promotion behavior among nurses due to the risks of isolation and direct infections due to COVID-19, secondary traumatic stress was not a statistically significant factor. Although secondary traumatic stress was not statistically significant, the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing. Nurses may have an increased chance of developing secondary traumatic stress because they experience burnout due to excessive workload and perceive high stress due to direct contact with COVID-19 patients [40]. These factors can adversely affect their quality of life and health [42]. Therefore, in-depth studies should be conducted on the psychological factors that affect nurses’ health promotion behavior.
After investigating the general characteristics influencing the health promotion behavior of participants, married people showed better health promotion behavior than those who were single. This finding is consistent with that of a study on the health promotion behavior of general hospital nurses [43]. A study on shift-work nurses also reported similar results [44]. In the case of married people, domestic stability has a positive effect on their work [45]. They also have more people to provide social support and are more responsible for their health due to factors such as pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare, resulting in them expending more effort into health promotion behavior. However, other studies on the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on nurses have reported a high level of anxiety about the risk of infection due to concerns for family members [7,46]. These psychological difficulties of married people may promote infection prevention behavior and affect the performance of health-related behaviors during the outbreak of infectious diseases.
In addition, healthier nurses showed better health promotion behaviors than those who were unhealthy. A study on nurses working in shifts [44] also reported that better health promotion behavior resulted in better health conditions, indicating that health status is a factor influencing health promotion behavior. Therefore, the healthier one is, the better one can perform activities to maintain and promote health [9].
Finally, nurses who did not skip meals showed better health promotion behaviors. A study on college students [47] reported that those who did not skip breakfast showed health promotion behavior, similar to what was found in this study. Research has also shown that nurses lead irregular lives due to the nature of working three shifts and often skip meals due to excessive work [48]. Furthermore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses have been overwhelmed by heavy workload and have developed irregular eating habits due to fatigue and stress [49]. Thus, mealtimes and diets provided by hospitals should be improved by considering their shift patterns and high-intensity infection control measures [50].
In summary, the most influential factors affecting nurses’ health promotion behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic were social support, self-efficacy, and eating habits. Therefore, programs to promote social support and self-efficacy and measures to compensate for irregular eating habits are necessary to improve nurses’ health promotion behavior.
Despite its various strengths, this study has several limitations. The participants in this study were limited to nurses from one university hospital; hence, the results may not be applicable to all nurses. Follow-up studies should include more nurses working at other hospitals. Second, further research should validate the effects of developing and implementing health promotion programs, including the improvement of self-efficacy and support from colleagues, which were the factors influencing health promotion behavior in this study. Third, the explanatory power between secondary traumatic stress and health promotion behaviors was not significant in this study. In-depth research should be conducted on the influence of individual characteristics or psychological factors on health promotion behavior in the future. Fourth, this study applied the COVID-19 pandemic as a specific situation in the IMB model, but it failed to verify whether knowledge about COVID-19 and attitude toward COVID-19 influenced health promotion behavior through self-efficacy as a medium. Therefore, further research is needed.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the factors affecting the health promotion behavior of nurses who have influenced patients during the COVID-19 pandemic through their roles as educators and caregivers. The results showed that social support, self-efficacy, marital status, perceived good health, and regular or correct eating patterns were the influential variables. In addition to caring for patients, frontline nurses attending to COVID-19 patients should maintain self-care. Therefore, hospitals should develop health promotion programs to increase the social support and self-efficacy of nurses based on the results of this study. It is also necessary to motivate nurses to develop a healthy lifestyle during the ongoing pandemic.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/medicina58060720/s1, Table S1: Disabilities or Health problems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.K.; methodology, B.K.; validation, S.-g.L. and B.K.; formal analysis, S.-g.L.; investigation, S.-g.L.; data curation, S.-g.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.-g.L. and B.K.; visualization, B.K.; supervision, B.K.; funding acquisition, S.-g.L. and B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gyeongsang National University Hospital in Gyeongsangnam-do (deliberation number: GNUH 2021-01-023-002).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request due to privacy restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the anonymous participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Infection Prevention and Control during Health Care When Novel Coronavirus (nCoV) Infection is suspected. Interim Guidance. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/10665-331495 (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  2. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. Retrieved December 15, 2021. Available online: http://ncov.mohw.go.kr/en/bdBoarList.do?brdId=16&brdGubun=163&dataGubun=&ncvContSeq=&contSeq=&board_id=&gubun= (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  3. Smallwood, N.; Pascoe, A.; Karimi, L.; Bismark, M.; Willis, K. Occupational disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic and their association with healthcare workers’ mental health. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Petrie, K.; Smallwood, N.; Pascoe, A.; Willis, K. Mental health symptoms and workplace challenges among Australian paramedics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kim, J. Nurses’ experience of Middle East respiratory syndrome patients care. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2017, 18, 185–196. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kim, J.; Kim, C. Association of job stress with health-promoting behaviors and health status in clinical nurses. Korean J. Occup. Health Nurs. 2016, 25, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Nie, A.; Su, X.; Zhang, S.; Guan, W.; Li, J. Psychological impact of COVID-19 outbreak on frontline nurses: A cross-sectional survey study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 4217–4226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fisher, W.A.; Fisher, J.D.; Harman, J. The information-motivation-behavioral skills model: A general social psychological approach to understanding and promoting health behavior. Soc. Psychol. Found. Health Illn. 2003, 4, 82–106. [Google Scholar]
  9. Han, K.; Kim, J.; Lee, K.; Park, J. Correlation between quality of life and health promoting behaviors among hospital staff nurses. Korean Acad. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 2004, 13, 430–437. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fisher, J.D.; Fisher, W.A.; Bryan, A.D. Information-motivation-behavioral skills model- based HIV risk behavior change intervention for inner-city high youth. Health Psychol. 2002, 21, 100–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fisher, J.D.; Amico, K.R.; Fisher, W.A.; Harman, J.J. The information-motivation-behavioral skills model of antiretroviral adherence and its applications. Curr. HIV AIDS Rep. 2008, 5, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kim, S.; Jung, E. A relevance on health perception, health knowledge and health promotion behavior of the university students. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2015, 16, 5394–5403. [Google Scholar]
  13. Amico, K.R.; Barta, W.; Konkle-Parker, D.J.; Fisher, J.D.; Cornman, D.H.; Shuper, P.A.; Fisher, W.A. The information-motivation-behavioral skills model of ART adherence in a Deep South HIV+ clinic sample. AIDS Behav. 2009, 13, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Pender, N.J.; Pender, A.R. Attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions to engage in health behaviors. Nurs. Res. 1986, 35, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kim, S.; Park, E.Y. Influence of knowledge and attitude of cancer on cancer prevention health promoting behavior in general hospital nurses. Asian Oncol. Nurs. 2018, 18, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cohen, S.; Hoberman, H.M. Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 13, 99–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gyeonggi-do Health and Medical Public Support Group. 2020. Available online: http://ggpi.or.kr/board/data_view.asp?cat=1&idx=118&page=1&searchvalue=&searchtxt= (accessed on 2 June 2021).
  18. Bandura, A.; Schunk, D.H. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 41, 586–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jeon, E. Development and Effectiveness Evaluation of Diabetes Self-Management Mobile Application Based on IMB Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, S.; So, H.; Kim, H. A study on the fatigue and health promoting behavior of public health nurses and hospital nurses. J. Korean Acad. Commun. Health Nurs. 2003, 14, 699–706. [Google Scholar]
  21. Park, J.; Kwon, M. The effect of well-being, fatigue, and self-efficacy on Health Promotion behaviors among shift workers. Korean J. Occup. Health Nurs. 2019, 28, 293–299. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, E.; Cho, O.; Wang, K.; Jang, M. Corelation between nurses’ posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and social stigma in nursing COVID-19 patients. J. East-West Nurs. Res. 2021, 27, 14–21. [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller, M.W. Personality and the etiology and expression of PTSD: A three-factor model perspective. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 2003, 10, 373–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yoon, S. Correlations between Nurses’ Knowledge of COVID-19 and Infection Control Compliance, Resilience, and Psychosocial Well-Being. Master’s Thesis, Joongang National University, Seoul, Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Park, G. The Study on the Health Center Avian Influenza Worker’s Knowledge, Attitude and Practical Skills about Management of Avian Influenza. Master’s Thesis, Inje University, Gimhae, Korea, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  26. Choi, Y.; Lee, E. A study on knowledge, attitude, infection management intention and educational needs of new respiratory infectious disease among nurses who unexperienced NRID (SARS and MERS). J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2019, 20, 721–731. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yang, M. The Effects of Coworker-Relationships on Performance: The Mediating Effects of Perceived Social Effect and Active Coping Strategy on the Relationship between Coworker-Relationships and Performance. Master’s Thesis, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cutrona, C.E.; Russell, D.W. The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Adv. Personalrelat. 1987, 1, 37–67. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jung, A. A Study on the Relations between a Health Promoting Behaviors and Self-Efficacy in General Hospital Nurse. Master’s Thesis, The Graduate School of Public Administration Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sherer, M.; Maddux, J.E.; Mercandante, B.; Prentice-Dunn, S.; Jacobs, B.; Rogers, R.W. The self efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychol. Rep. 1982, 51, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Park, J.-Y. Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the secondary traumatic stress scale(K-STSS). Korean J. Soc. Welf. 2011, 63, 33–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bride, B.E.; Robinson, M.M.; Yegidis, B.; Figley, C.R. Development and validation of the secondary traumatic stress scale. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 2004, 14, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Kim, M.; Choi, S.; Kim, E. Development of measuring tool for health promotion behavior of nurses. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Soc. 2021, 22, 138–147. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ha, Y.; Choi, H. Relationships among self efficacy, social support, and health promoting behaviors in correctional officers. Korean J. Occup. Health Nurs. 2014, 23, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Kim, J.; Kwon, M.; Jung, S. The influence of health locus of control, social support, and self-efficacy on health promoting behavior in middle-aged adults. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2017, 18, 494–503. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, J. Health promoting lifestyle and related factors among hospital nurses—Pender’s health promoting model. J. Korean Data Anal. Soc. 2008, 10, 1947–1960. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hong, E. Factors affecting Nurse’s health promoting behavior: Focusing on self-efficacy and emotional labor. Korean J. Occup. Health Nurs. 2014, 23, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Oh, J.; Moon, Y. A predictive model of health promotion behavior in nursing students. J. Digit. Converg. 2014, 12, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Xiong, H.; Yi, S.; Lin, Y. The psychological status and self-efficacy of nurses during COVID-19 outbreak: A cross-sectional survey. Inquiry 2020, 57, 46958020957114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shin, S. Relationships between health promoting lifestyle, health belief about emerging infectious disease and hygiene behavior of college students. J. Korea Converg. Soc. 2019, 10, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bian, C.; Xu, S.; Wang, H.; Li, N.; Wu, J.; Zhao, Y.; Li, P.; Lu, H. A study on the application of the information-motivation-behavioral skills (IMB) model on rational drug use behavior among second-level hospital outpatients in Anhui, China. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135782. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jin, H. A Structural Equation Model on Exercise Behavior in Patients with Heart Failure: Based on IMB Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Dong-A University, Busan, Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gates, D.M.; Gillespie, G.L.; Succop, P. Violence against nurses and its impact on stress and productivity. Nurs. Econ. 2011, 29, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  44. Choi, M.; Yoo, I. effect of social support and ego-resilience on health promotion behavior in nurses. J. Korean Soc. Living Environ. Syst. 2021, 28, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kim, H.; Lee, T.; Kim, K. The effects of health promotion behavior of shifting nurses’ on the health conditions. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2010, 11, 1126–1132. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kang, S. Influence of fatigue, health perception, and happiness on health promoting behaviors among general hospital nurses. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2018, 19, 456–465. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cho, K. Psychological Response of a Nurse Who Experienced COVID-19 Patient Care: Q Methodological Approach. Master’s Thesis, Gyoungsang National University, Jinju, Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  48. Woo, B.; Lee, H. Effects of health perception, self-efficacy and social support of college students on the health promotion behaviors. J. Korean Appl. Sci. Technol. 2019, 36, 1290–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kim, S.; Kim, W. A phenomenological convergence study on the mealtime experience of shift nurses on duty. J. Korea Converg. Soc. 2019, 10, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ha, J.; Kim, K. A Nurse’s volunteering experience in Daegu during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative case study. Nurs. Health 2021, 26, 18–28. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Participant Characteristics and Their Relationship to Health Promotion Behavior (N = 162).
Table 1. Participant Characteristics and Their Relationship to Health Promotion Behavior (N = 162).
VariablesCategoriesnHealth Promotion Behavior Score (M ± SD)tp
GenderMale73.41 ± 1.110.260.801
Female1553.30 ± 0.53
Age (Yrs)≤291073.30 ± 0.54−0.130.900
≥30553.32 ± 0.59
Marital status Single1263.26 ± 0.55−2.040.043
Married363.48 ± 0.57
Number of people living together ≤2903.29 ± 0.58−0.560.578
≥3723.34 ± 0.53
Family to take care ofYes113.30 ± 0.45−0.050.958
No1513.31 ± 0.57
Educational levelCollege1473.31 ± 0.570.160.874
Master’s or above153.29 ± 0.45
Health problemsYes1183.26 ± 0.53−1.800.076
No443.45 ± 0.62
Hospital useNo1033.37 ± 0.531.860.065
≥1583.20 ± 0.59
Perceived health statusHealthy953.45 ± 0.563.89<0.001
Less healthy than average673.11 ± 0.50
M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Table 2. Lifestyle Characteristics of the Participants (N = 162).
Table 2. Lifestyle Characteristics of the Participants (N = 162).
VariablesCategoriesnHealth Promotion Behavior Score (M ± SD)tpScheffé
Walk for more than 20 min Not at all a523.13 ± 0.574.910.009c > a
Less than twice a week b703.34 ± 0.51
More than three times a week c403.48 ± 0.58
Sleep disruptionsNot at all a393.41 ± 0.601.220.297
Less than twice a week b703.32 ± 0.54
More than three times a week c533.22 ± 0.56
Number of times meals are skippedNot at all a173.60 ± 0.665.060.007a > c
Less than twice a week b583.39 ± 0.55
More than three times a week c873.19 ± 0.52
Lack of restNot at all a153.57 ± 0.702.540.082
Less than twice a week b463.37 ± 0.50
More than three times a week c1013.24 ± 0.55
Stress managementNot at all a983.23 ± 0.574.180.017c > a
Less than twice a week b473.35 ± 0.49
More than three times a week c173.64 ± 0.58
M = mean; SD = standard deviation; a, b, c = Scheffe’s post hoc test.
Table 3. Correlations Between Health Promotion Score and each of the Study Variables.
Table 3. Correlations Between Health Promotion Score and each of the Study Variables.
VariablesKCACISSSEST
r (p)
Health promotion behavior−0.12
(0.127)
0.38
(<0.001)
−0.13
(0.135)
0.54
(<0.001)
0.53
(<0.001)
KC = knowledge about COVID-19; ACI = attitude toward COVID-19 infection; SS = social support; SE = self-efficacy; ST = secondary traumatic stress.
Table 4. Factors Affecting the Participants’ Health Promotion Behavior (N = 162).
Table 4. Factors Affecting the Participants’ Health Promotion Behavior (N = 162).
BSEβtp
(constant)0.630.45 1.410.160
Marital status (1 = married, 0 = single)0.160.070.132.130.035
Perceived health status (1 = healthy, 0 = less healthy than average)0.130.060.132.270.024
Walk for more than 20 min (ref = not at all)
Less than twice a week0.060.070.060.810.420
More than three times a week0.040.080.030.460.649
Number of times meals are skipped (ref = more than three times a week)
Not at all0.210.100.132.200.029
Less than twice a week0.060.060.060.910.364
Stress (ref = not at all)
Less than twice a week0.080.070.071.150.252
More than three times a week0.290.100.182.950.004
Knowledge about COVID-19−0.700.36−0.11−1.910.058
Attitude toward COVID-19 infection0.150.080.121.910.059
Secondary traumatic stress−0.010.04−0.01−0.200.840
Social support0.370.060.405.85<0.001
Self-efficacy0.230.050.274.31<0.001
Adj-R20.514
R20.553
F(p)14.09 (<0.001)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, S.-g.; Kim, B. Factors Affecting Nurses’ Health Promotion Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic Based on the Information–Motivation–Behavioral Skills Model. Medicina 2022, 58, 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060720

AMA Style

Lee S-g, Kim B. Factors Affecting Nurses’ Health Promotion Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic Based on the Information–Motivation–Behavioral Skills Model. Medicina. 2022; 58(6):720. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060720

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Sun-gyung, and Boyoung Kim. 2022. "Factors Affecting Nurses’ Health Promotion Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic Based on the Information–Motivation–Behavioral Skills Model" Medicina 58, no. 6: 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060720

APA Style

Lee, S. -g., & Kim, B. (2022). Factors Affecting Nurses’ Health Promotion Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic Based on the Information–Motivation–Behavioral Skills Model. Medicina, 58(6), 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060720

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop