3.8 Article

Class model of family planning based on predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors in improving knowledge, attitude, family support and use of long-term contraception methods in fertile age pair of high risk

期刊

BALI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 143-148

出版社

UNIV UDAYANA
DOI: 10.15562/bmj.v9i1.1727

关键词

family planning class model; knowledge; attitude; family support; long-term contraception method

资金

  1. Udayana University
  2. Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia
  3. Denpasar Health Office

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: This study aims to prove the model of family planning classes based on predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors to increase knowledge, attitudes, family support, and the use of long-term contraception methods in high risk fertile age pairs. Method: The design used for this study is the Community Trial with the Randomized Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design approach. The sample in this study were couples of childbearing age who had one or more high risk criteria (age < 20 years, age > 35 years, number of children > 3 and birth distance <2 years) as many as 150 respondents as an intervention group (family planning class model based on predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factor) and 150 respondents as a Control group (Conventional Family Planning Class Model). This intervention was carried out for 6 months. Data collected includes data on knowledge, attitudes, family support, and use of contraception methods. Data were analyzed using Chi-Square test. Result: The family planning class model based on predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors effectively increases knowledge (p=0.000), attitudes (p=0.000), family support (p=0.037), and long-term contraception method use (p=0.000). Conclusion: The family planning class model based on predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors effectively increases knowledge, attitudes, family support, and the use of long-term contraception methods in high risk fertile age couples

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据