Page 1
76
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the data
collected. The findings were organized and presented under the following
sections.
Section 4.1 Distribution of study variables
Section 4.2 Effectiveness of OPP on knowledge
Section 4.3 Effectiveness of OPP on self-efficacy
Section 4.3 Effectiveness of OPP on bone mineral density
Section 4.1 Distribution of study variables
Table 4. Percentage distribution of the demographic variables of thefemale school teachers (N=170).
Studygroup(n=85)
Controlgroup(n=85)Sl.
No. VariablesNo. % No. %
2 valuep value
Age (Years)31-35 05 05.9 05 05.9 0.000
1.00036-40 23 27.1 27 31.8 0.320
0.57241-45 49 57.6 46 54.1 0.095
0.758
1.
46-50 08 09.4 07 08.2 0.0670.796
EducationUnder graduate 30 35.3 46 54.1 3.368
0.066Postgraduate 52 61.2 37 43.5 2.528
0.112
2.
Others (M.Phil.) 03 03.5 02 02.4 0.2000.655
Page 2
77
Marital statusMarried 81 95.3 83 97.6 0.024
0.876
Separated 01 01.2 0 0 -
Widow 01 01.2 0 0 -
3.
Unmarried 02 02.3 02 02.4 0.0001.000
Type of familyNuclear 68 80 76 89.4 0.444
0.505
4.
Joint 17 20 09 10.6 2.4620.117
Type of residenceUrban 32 37.6 31 36.5 0.016
0.900Semi-urban 48 56.5 49 57.6 0.010
0.919
5.
Rural 05 05.9 05 05.9 0.0001.000
Yearly familyincome (Rupees)80,000-1,20,000 11 12.9 11 12.9 0.000
1.0001,20,001-1,60,000 51 60 52 61.2 0.010
0.922
6.
Above 1,60,000 23 27.1 22 25.9 0.0220.881
Table 4 shows the percentage distribution of the demographic variables
of the subjects in both the groups which reveal that majority of the subjects
were in the age group of 41-45 years, 49 (57.6%) in the study group and 46
(54.1%) in the control group. The data regarding educational status shows
that in the study group 52 (61.2%) were postgraduates and in the control
group 46 (54.1%) were undergraduates. Most of the subjects hailed from the
semi-urban area 48 (56.5%) in the study group and 49 (57.6%) in the control
group.
Page 3
78
5.9 5.9
27.131.8
57.6 54.1
9.4 8.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
31-35 years 36-40 years 41-45 years 46-50 years
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of age of the study participants.
Study group
Control group
78
Page 4
79
12.9 12.9
60 61.2
27.125.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Rs 80000 - 120000 Rs 120001 - 160000 Above Rs 160000
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of yearly family income of the study participants.
Study group
Control group
Page 5
80
Table 5. Percentage distribution of the personal variables of the female
school teachers (N=170).
Studygroup(n=85)
Controlgroup(n=85)Sl.
No. VariablesNo. % No. %
2 valuep value
Dietary patternVegetarian 45 52.9 51 60 0.375
0.540
1.
Mixed vegetarian 40 47.1 34 40 0.4860.485
No. of childrenNo issues 03 03.5 02 02.4 0.200
0.655
One 24 28.2 32 37.6 1.1430.285
Two 57 67.1 50 58.8 0.4580.499
2.
Three 01 01.2 01 01.2 -
Family history ofosteoporosisNo 81 95.3 82 96.5 0.006
0.938
3.
Yes 04 04.7 03 03.5 0.1430.705
Household activitySedentary 23 27.1 14 16.5 2.189
0.139
Moderate 56 65.8 66 77.6 0.8200.365
4.
Heavy 06 07.1 05 05.9 0.0910.763
Practice of exercisesNo 79 92.9 81 95.3 0.025
0.874
5.
Yes 06 07.1 04 04.7 0.4000.527
Page 6
81
Studygroup(n=85)
Controlgroup(n=85)Sl.
No. VariablesNo. % No. %
2 valuep value
Body mass indexUnderweight(<18.5 kg/m²)
08 09.4 09 10.6 0.0590.808
Normal(18.5-23 kg/m²)
32 37.7 38 44.7 0.5140.473
Overweight(23.1-25 kg/m²)
42 49.4 35 41.2 0.6360.425
6.
Obesity(>25 kg/m²)
03 03.5 03 03.5 0.0001.000
Table 5 depicts that 45(52.9%) subjects in the study group and
51(60%) subjects in the control group were vegetarians and the remaining 40
(47.1%) in the study group and 34 (40%) in the control group were mixed
vegetarians. Only four (4.7%) subjects in the study group and three (3.5%) in
the control group had family history of osteoporosis, whereas 81(95.3%) and
82(96.5%) subjects in the study and control groups respectively, had no
family history of osteoporosis. Six (7.1%) subjects in the study group and five
(5.9%) in the control group said ‘yes’ to practice of exercises. The data on
body mass index revealed that 42 (49.4%) and 35 (41.2%) subjects in the
study and control groups belonged to overweight category and eight (9.4%)
and nine (10.6%) subjects in the study and control groups belonged to
underweight category.
Page 7
82
52.9 47.1
60
40
0
20
40
60
80
%
Study group Control group
Figure 5. Percentage distribution of dietary pattern of the study participants.
Vegetarian
Mixed vegetarian
Page 8
83
7.1 4.7
92.9 95.3
0102030405060708090
100
%
Yes No
Figure 6. Percentage distribution of practice of exercise of the study participants.
Study groupControl group
Page 9
84
9.4 10.6
37.7 44.7
49.4
41.2
3.5 3.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Under weight Normal Over weight Obesity
Figure 7. Percentage distribution of body mass index of the study participants.
Study group
Control group
Page 10
85
Section 4.2 Effectiveness of OPP on knowledge
Table 6. Comparison of knowledge on osteoporosis risk factors between
the study and control groups.
Study group Control groupDuration ofthe study Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Pretest 1.71 1.31 2.06 1.36 -0.353 1.7080.88
Posttest-I 7.73 1.09 2.28 1.19 5.447 11.3250.000***
Posttest-II 7.94 0.87 2.11 1.2 5.833 11.2800.000***
Posttest-III 7.96 0.81 2.90 1.37 5.059 11.1750.000***
***p<0.001
Table 6 reveals the comparison of knowledge on osteoporosis risk
factors between the study and control groups. In the study group, the mean
value of osteoporosis risk factor knowledge was 1.71 during the pretest,
whereas, an increase in the mean values 7.73, 7.94 and 7.96 was noticed
during posttests-I, II and III respectively. In the control group, the mean value
was 2.06 during the pretest and 2.28, 2.11 and 2.90 in the posttests-I, II and
III respectively. Even though there was an improvement in the mean scores in
the control group, the mean differences were high and the calculated t values
were 11.325, 11.280 and 11.175 with p < 0.001 level which confirmed the
existence of a statistically significant difference between the study and control
groups with relation to knowledge on osteoporosis risk factors.
Page 11
86
Figure 8. Comparison of knowledge on osteoporosis risk factors between the study andcontrol groups.
1.71
7.73 7.94 7.96
2.06 2.28 2.11
2.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
Mea
n ±
SD
Study groupControl group
86
Page 12
87
Table 7. Comparison of knowledge on exercises between the study and
control groups
Study group Control groupDurationof thestudy
Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Pretest 3.07 1.549 3.44 1.569 -0.365 1.5250.129
Posttest-I 13.88 1.238 3.88 1.257 10.000 52.2390.000***
Posttest-II 13.77 1.172 4.13 1.062 9.640 55.7170.000***
Posttest-III 13.67 1.118 5.49 1.501 8.173 39.4690.000***
***p<0.001
Table 7 illustrates the mean, SD and t-value of knowledge on exercises
of the subjects in both the groups during pretest, posttests- I, II and III. The
pretest mean score was 3.07 in the study group and 3.44 in the control group
whereas the posttest mean scores were 13.88 and 3.88 during posttest-I, 13.77
and 4.13 during posttest-II and 13.67 and 5.49 during posttest-III in the study
and control groups respectively. There was a significant improvement of
knowledge in the study group and the calculated t-value showed the existence
of a statistically significant difference at p< 0.001 between the groups during
the posttests.
Page 13
88
Figure 9. Comparison of knowledge on exercises between the study and control groups
3.07
13.88 13.77 13.67
3.44 3.88 4.13
5.49
0
4
8
12
16
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
Mea
n ±
SD
Study group
Control group
Page 14
89
Table 8. Comparison of knowledge on calcium intake between the study
and control groups
Study group Control groupDurationof thestudy
Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Pretest 3.22 1.66 3.34 1.43 -0.118 0.6110.541
Posttest-I 14.06 1.39 3.76 0.89 10.294 11.3920.000***
Posttest-II 13.99 1.30 3.82 0.92 10.167 11.2710.000***
Posttest-III 14.15 1.2 4.59 1.06 9.558 11.1630.000***
***p<0.001
Table 8 portrays the comparison of knowledge on intake of calcium of
the subjects between the groups during pretest, posttests- I, II and III. The
pretest mean scores were 3.22 in the study group and 3.34 in the control
group and statistically there is no significant difference in the pretests. The
posttest calcium intake knowledge mean scores were 14.06 and 3.76 during
posttest-I, 13.99 and 3.82 during posttest-II and 14.15 and 4.59 during
posttest-III in the study and control groups respectively. The mean scores
were higher in the study group than the control group during the posttests and
were also statistically significant at p<0.001.
Page 15
90
Figure 10. Comparison of knowledge on calcium intake between the study and controlgroups.
3.22
14.06 13.99 14.15
3.34 3.76 3.824.59
0
4
8
12
16
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
Mea
n ±
SD
Study group
Control group
Page 16
91
Table 9. Comparison of aspects of knowledge within the study group
during pretest and posttest-III
Pretest Posttest-IIIAspects ofKnowledge Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Osteoporosisrisk factors
1.68 1.293 7.96 0.813 -6.284 7.8580.000***
Exercises 3.02 1.533 13.67 1.118 -10.642 7.8410.000***
Calcium intake 3.17 1.664 14.15 1.295 -10.490 7.8380.000***
***p<0.001
Table 9 explains the comparison of aspects of knowledge with in the
study group. Post-intervention knowledge scores related to osteoporosis risk
factors (7.96), exercises (13.67) and calcium intake (14.15) were higher than
the pretest scores (1.68, 3.02 & 3.17) and the differences were statistically
significant at p<0.001.
Page 17
92
Table 10. Comparison of aspects of knowledge within the control group
during pretest and posttest-III
Pretest Posttest-IIIAspects ofKnowledge Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Osteoporosisrisk factors
2.07 1.377 2.90 1.376 -0.831 3.4850.000***
Exercises 3.40 1.569 5.49 1.501 -2.096 6.9470.000***
Calcium intake 3.34 1.451 4.59 1.060 -1.253 5.1050.000***
***p<0.001
Table 10 presents the comparison of three aspects of knowledge:
osteoporosis risk factors, exercises and calcium intake within the control
group during pretest and posttest-III. The mean scores of all the three aspects
of knowledge showed an improvement than the scores in the pretest and the
calculated t values were statistically significant at p<0.001.
Page 18
93
Table 11. Repeated measures of the aspects of knowledge over a period of time between the study and control groups.
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-IIPosttest-III
Study group Controlgroup Study group Control
group Study group Controlgroup Study group Control
group
Aspects ofKnowledge
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
F valuep value
Osteoporosisrisk factors
1.68 1.293 2.07 1.377 7.78 1.084 2.28 1.203 7.98 0.851 2.11 1.220 7.96 0.813 2.90 1.376 404.4160.000***
Exercises 3.02 1.533 3.40 1.569 13.94 1.228 3.87 1.207 13.79 1.180 4.12 1.064 13.67 1.118 5.49 1.501 1127.8720.000***
Calcium intake 3.17 1.664 3.34 1.451 14.11 1.396 3.76 0.892 14.02 1.294 3.84 0.904 14.15 1.295 4.59 1.060 1114.6640.000***
***p<0.001
Table 11 explicates the comparison of the three aspects of knowledge between the groups over a period of time from the
pretest to posttest-III. The mean scores of all the aspects of knowledge showed improvement in each test than the previous test in
both the groups but the difference in increase in mean scores between the groups showed an increase in knowledge in the study
group than the control group which was statistically significant at p<0.001.
Page 19
94
Section 4.3 Effectiveness of OPP on self-efficacy
Table 12. Comparison of perception on exercises between the study and
control groups.
Study group Control groupDuration ofthe study
Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Pretest 39.41 9.029 37.13 6.191 2.282 1.9220.56
Posttest-I 79.85 9.871 38.73 6.263 41.118 32.4270.000***
Posttest-II 88.98 9.548 46.13 8.637 42.845 30.4170.000***
Posttest-III 96.21 4.949 50.28 8.307 45.953 42.8860.000***
***p<0.001
Table 12 describes the mean, SD and t-value of perception on
exercises of the subjects in both the groups during pretest, posttests- I, II and
III. The pretest mean score in the study group was 39.41 and in the control
group was 37.13. During posttests- I, II and III the mean scores in the study
group were 79.85, 88.98 and 96.21 respectively whereas in the control group
the posttests mean scores were 38.73, 46.13 and 50.28 respectively. The mean
scores in the study group showed an improvement in the posttests following
the OPP and the t-values depict that statistically significant differences
existed between the study and control groups at p< 0.001.
Page 20
95
Figure 11. Comparison of perception on exercises between the study and controlgroups.
39.41
79.85
88.98
96.21
37.13 38.7346.13
50.28
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
Mea
n ±
SD
Study group
Control group
Page 21
96
Table 13. Comparison of perception on intake of dietary calcium between
the study and control groups.
Study group Control groupDuration ofthe study Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Pretest 47.12 6.042 46.56 10.423 0.553 0.4230.673
Posttest-I 81.52 10.852 46.93 10.507 34.588 21.1110.000***
Posttest-II 90.63 7.615 48.49 7.895 42.138 35.0990.000***
Posttest-III 95.94 4.484 52.16 7.748 43.782 44.1470.000***
***p<0.001
Table 13 shows the mean, SD and t-value of perception on intake of
dietary calcium of the subjects in both the groups during pretest, posttests-I, II
and III. The pretest mean scores in the study and control groups were 47.12
and 46.56 respectively. The mean scores of perception on intake of dietary
calcium of the subjects showed improvement in the study group during the
posttests-I, II and III (81.52, 90.63 and 95.94) than in the control group
(46.93, 48.49 and 52.16). The posttests t-values were 21.111, 35.099 and
44.147 and they confirmed the presence of statistically significant difference
between the study and control groups at p< 0.001.
Page 22
97
Figure 12. Comparison of perception on intake of dietary calcium between the study andcontrol groups.
47.12
81.52
90.6395.94
46.56 46.93 48.49 52.16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
Mea
n ±
SD
Study groupControl group
Page 23
98
Table 14. Percentage distribution of the level of practice of exercises in
the study group.
Poor(< 50%)
Fair(50 -75%)
Good(> 75%)Duration of
the studyNo. % No. % No. %
Posttest-I (n=85)
- - 36 42.4 49 57.6
Posttest-II (n=83)
- - 15 18.1 68 81.9
Posttest-III (n=81)
- - 04 04.9 77 95.1
Table 14 portrays the level of practice of exercises (balancing, weight
bearing, strengthening & resistance exercises) of the subjects in the study
group during the posttests. During posttest-I, 36 (42.4%) of them had fair
practice of exercise and 49 (57.6%) of them had good practice. The posttest –
II and III showed an increase in the number of subjects in the ‘good’ category
with 68 (81.9%) and 77 (95.1%) respectively.
Page 24
99
Table 15. Comparison of practice of exercises during posttest-I and II in
the study group.
Posttest-I Posttest-IIType ofExercise Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Balancing 10.98 0.765 11.65 0.688 -0.675 6.461
0.000***
Toe walking(weightbearing)
4.75 0.437 4.82 0.387 -0.072 1.228
0.223
Heel walking(weightbearing)
4.55 0.524 4.60 0.540 -0.048 0.601
0.550
Hip(strengthening)
8.71 1.453 9.61 1.324 -0.904 4.840
0.000***
Squat(strengthening)
3.07 0.513 3.29 0.507 -0.217 2.825
0.006**
Wrist(resistance)
3.73 0.607 3.66 0.60 -0.072 0.883
0.380
Spine(resistance)
2.22 0.585 3.35 0.551 -1.133 13.845
0.000***
***p<0.001, **p<0.01
Table 15 displays the comparison of mean scores of practice of
exercises of the subjects in the study group during posttest-I and II. The mean
scores of exercises during posttest –II are higher than that of the mean scores
in the posttest-I and the difference in mean scores of balancing, hip and spine
exercises were statistically significant at p< 0.001 and squat exercise at
p<0.01.
Page 25
100
Table 16. Comparison of practice of exercises during posttest-I and III in
the study group.
Posttest-I Posttest-IIIType ofExercise Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Balancing 10.98 0.765 11.95 0.218 -0.975 11.5820.000***
Toe walking(weightbearing)
4.75 0.437 4.93 0.307 -0.185 3.4920.001**
Heel walking(weightbearing)
4.55 0.524 4.75 0.434 -0.198 3.0690.003**
Hip(strengthening)
8.71 1.453 10.19 1.074 -1.506 8.9810.000***
Squat(strengthening)
3.07 0.513 3.26 0.587 -0.198 2.3230.023*
Wrist(resistance)
3.73 0.607 3.77 0.481 -0.037 0.4450.658
Spine(resistance)
2.22 0.585 3.10 0.718 -0.901 8.4790.000***
***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05
Table 16 presents the comparison of practice of exercises of the
subjects in the study group during posttest-I and III. The mean scores of the
exercises balancing, hip and spine showed an improved scores in the posttest-
III (11.95, 10.19, 3.10) than in the posttest-I (10.98, 8.71, 2.22) and these
differences were statistically significant at p<0.001. A statistically significant
difference at p<0.01 was also noted between the mean scores of toe and heel
walking.
Page 26
101
Table 17. Comparison of practice of exercises during posttest-II and III
in the study group.
Posttest-II Posttest-IIIType ofExercise Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Balancing 11.65 0.688 11.95 0.218 -0.309 4.1830.000***
Toe walking(weightbearing)
4.82 0.387 4.93 0.307 -0.099 1.9160.059
Heel walking(weightbearing)
4.60 0.540 4.75 0.434 -0.148 2.3290.022*
Hip(strengthening)
9.61 1.324 10.19 1.074 -0.568 4.6210.000***
Squat(strengthening)
3.29 0.507 3.26 0.587 0.025 0.4240.673
Wrist(resistance)
3.66 0.60 3.77 0.481 -0.111 1.7540.083
Spine(resistance)
3.35 0.551 3.10 0.718 0.247 3.1020.003**
***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05
Table 17 showcases the mean and SD of the practice of exercises of
the subjects in the study group during the posttest- II and III. The compared
mean values during posttest-II & III of balancing (11.65 & 11.95) and hip
(9.61 & 10.19) exercises showed a statistically significant difference at p<
0.001 and of heel walking (4.60 & 4.75) at p<0.05.
Page 27
102
Table 18. Overall mean and SD of practice of exercises in the study
group during posttest-I, II & III.
Practice of exercisesDuration of the study
Mean SD
Posttest-I 38.0 3.643
Posttest-II 41.12 3.376
Posttest-III 41.96 2.745
Table 18 reveals the overall mean and SD of practice of exercises
(balancing, weight bearing, strengthening & resistance exercises) of the
subjects in the study group during posttest-I, II and III. The mean scores of
practice of exercises revealed an improvement in the practice during posttest-
II (41.12) & III (41.96) than I (38.0).
Page 28
103
Figure 13. Comparison of practice of exercises in the study group.
3841.12 41.96
0
10
20
30
40
50
Posttest - I Posttest - II Posttest - III
Mea
n ±
SD
Page 29
104
Table 19. Comparison of overall practice of exercises in the study group
during posttest-I, II & III.
Practice of exercises
Duration of the studyMean difference
t valuep value
Posttest-I & II -3.120 6.859 0.000***
Posttest-I & III -4.025 9.562 0.000***
Posttest-II & III -0.852 3.707 0.000***
Table 19 depicts the comparison of overall practice of exercises
(balancing, weight bearing, strengthening & resistance exercises) of subjects
in the study group during the three posttests. The mean difference of posttest-
I & II was -3.120 with t value 6.859, posttest-I & III was -4.025 with t value
9.562 and posttest-II & III was -0.852 with t value 3.707 and these differences
showed an improved practice of exercises in the posttest II and III than I,
which was also statistically significant at p<0.001.
Page 30
105
Table 20. Percentage distribution of the regularity in practice of exercises
in the study group.
Regular 4 days)
Irregular(< 4 days)Duration of the
studyNo. % No. %
Posttest-I (n=85) 54 63.5 31 36.5
Posttest-II (n=83) 68 81.9 15 18.1
Posttest-III (n=81) 71 87.7 10 12.3
Table 20 shows the number of study group subjects in the regular and
irregular practice of exercises. During posttest-II 68 (81.9%) subjects and
during posttest-III 71(87.7%) subjects had regular practice of exercises that
include [balancing, weight bearing (walking, toe walking & heel walking),
strengthening (hip & squat) and resistance (wrist & spine) exercises]. There
was an increase in the number of subjects in the category of regular practice
in the posttest-II than posttest-I and in posttest-III than in posttest-I & II.
Page 31
106
Table 21. Percentage distribution of practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated by FFQ method during pre-& posttests
in the study and control groups.
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
< 600mg/day
600mg/day
< 600mg/day
600mg/day
< 600mg/day
600mg/day
< 600mg/day
600mg/day
Group
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Study 85 100 - - 85 100 - - 40 48.2 43 51.8 9 11.1 72 88.9
Control 85 100 - - 85 100 - - 84 100 - - 83 100 - -
Table 21 explicates the frequency and percentage distribution of practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated by FFQ
method by the subjects in the study and control groups. During pre and posttest-I, the dietary calcium intake was less than 600
mg/day for all the subjects in both the groups whereas; during posttest-II 43 (51.8%) and posttest-III 72 (88.9%) subjects had
600 mg of dietary calcium per day in the study group.
Page 32
107
Table 22. Percentage distribution of practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated by 24-hours dietary recall method
during pre- & posttests in the study and control groups.
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
< 600mg/day
600mg/day
< 600mg/day
600mg/day
< 600mg/day
600mg/day
< 600mg/day
600mg/day
Group
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Study 85 100 - - 85 100 - - 51 61.4 32 38.6 22 27.2 59 72.8
Control 85 100 - - 85 100 - - 84 100 - - 83 100 - -
Table 22 elucidates the frequency and percentage distribution of practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated by 24 hour dietary
recall method by the subjects in the study and control groups. The data reveals that all the subjects in the control group had < 600
mg of dietary calcium per day during pretest and all the posttests. But in the study group an improvement could be noticed as 32
(38.6%) and 59 (72.8%) subjects had 600 mg of dietary calcium per day during posttest-II & III respectively.
Page 33
108
Table 23. Comparison of practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated
by FFQ between the study and control groups.
Study group Control groupDurationof thestudy Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Pretest 226.12 60.462 223.55 58.959 2.578 0.2810.779
Posttest-I 273.55 61.102 222.535 55.057 50.667 0.0600.000***
Posttest-II 594.38 101.288 225.318 64.472 369.071 0.0000.000***
Posttest-III 691.61 73.747 239.246 61.604 452.364 0.0390.000***
***p<0.001
Table 23 displays the comparison of practice of dietary calcium intake
estimated by FFQ of the subjects in both the groups during pretest, posttests-
I, II and III. The mean score during pretest in the study group was 226.12 and
in the control group was 223.55. The mean scores during posttests-I, II and III
in the study group were 273.55, 594.38 & 691.61 and in the control group
were 222.535, 225.318 and 239.246 respectively. The t-values obtained
during posttest-I, II & III (0.060, 0.000 and 0.039) resulted in statistically
significant differences at p< 0.001 and it is evident that the intake of dietary
calcium was influenced by OPP in the study group.
Page 34
109
Figure 14. Comparison of practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated by FFQbetween the study and control groups.
226.12
273.55
594.38
691.61
223.55 222.53 225.31 239.24
0
200
400
600
800
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
Mea
n ±
SD
Study group
Control group
Page 35
110
Table 24. Comparison of practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated
by 24-hours dietary recall method between the study and control groups.
Study group Control groupDurationof thestudy Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Pretest 216.848 59.084 214.101 65.083 2.747 0.2880.774
Posttest-I 261.379 63.91 213.712 63.482 47.667 0.5120.000***
Posttest-II
542.727 121.383 214.795 60.372 327.931 0.0000.000***
Posttest-III
665.195 81.911 220.304 58.395 444.891 0.0000.000***
***p<0.001
Table 24 depicts the comparison of practice of dietary calcium intake
of the subjects estimated by 24-hours dietary recall method between the
groups. The pretest mean scores in the study and control groups were 216.848
and 214.101 respectively. The posttests mean scores revealed that the mean
scores in the study group were higher than that of the control group. The
calculated t-values during posttests showed the presence of statistically
significant difference at p< 0.001 between the groups.
Page 36
111
Figure 15. Comparison of practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated by 24 hoursdietary recall between the study and control groups.
216.84261.37
542.72
665.19
241.1213.71 214.79 220.3
0
200
400
600
800
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
Mea
n ±
SD
Study groupControl group
Page 37
112
Table 25. Comparison of aspects of self-efficacy within the study group
during pretest and posttest-III
Pretest Posttest-IIIAspects ofself-efficacy
Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t value p value
Perception onexercises
39.23 8.921 96.21 4.949 -56.975 47.0610.000***
Perception onintake ofdietarycalcium
46.94 6.059 95.94 4.484 -49.000 58.1570.000***
Intake ofdietarycalcium - FFQ
227.80 60.874 691.610 73.747 -442.105 42.5330.000***
Intake ofdietarycalcium - 24hrs dietaryrecall
218.252 59.671 665.19 81.911 -424.101 38.9390.000***
***p<0.001
Table 25 illustrates the mean scores of the aspects of self-efficacy:
perception on exercises, perception on intake of dietary calcium, practice of
intake of dietary calcium estimated by FFQ method and 24 hrs dietary recall
of the subjects in the study group. The mean scores of the four aspects of self-
efficacy were higher in the posttest-III (96.21, 95.94, 691.610 & 665.19) than
in the pretest (39.23, 46.94, 227.80 & 218.252) and the mean differences were
statistically significant at p<0.001 for all the variables.
Page 38
113
Table 26. Comparison of aspects of self-efficacy within the control group
during pretest and posttest-III
Pretest Posttest-IIIAspects ofSelf-efficacy Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Perception onexercises
37.05 6.219 50.28 8.307 -13.229 12.2290.000***
Perception onintake ofdietary calcium
46.30 10.399 52.16 7.748 -5.855 5.9800.000***
Intake ofdietary calcium- FFQ
221.32 57.675 239.246 61.604 -17.928 3.2470.002**
Intake ofdietary calcium- 24 hrs dietaryrecall
212.677 65.089 220.304 58.395 -7.626 38.9390.057
***p<0.001, **p<0.01
Table 26 projects that in the control group the differences in mean
scores of perception on exercises, perception on intake of dietary calcium,
and practice of intake of dietary calcium estimated by FFQ and 24-hours
dietary recall method obtained between the pretest (37.05, 46.30, 221.32 &
212.677) and posttest-III (50.28, 52.16, 239.246 & 220.304) were statistically
significant at p<0.001.
Page 39
114
Table 27. Repeated measures of the aspects of self-efficacy over a period of time between the study and control groups.
Pretest Posttest-I Posttest-II Posttest-III
Study group Control group Study group Control group Study group Control group Study group Control groupAspects of Self-efficacy
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
F valuep value
Perception onexercises
39.23 8.921 37.05 6.219 79.56 9.941 38.69 6.293 88.77 9.562 46.25 8.616 96.21 4.949 50.28 8.307 802.2040.000***
Perception onintake of dietarycalcium intake
46.94 6.059 46.30 10.399 81.81 10.726 46.66 10.488 90.40 7.563 48.35 7.839 95.94 4.484 52.16 7.748 641.7940.000***
Intake of dietarycalcium – FFQ
227.80 60.874 221.32 57.675 275.341 60.935 221.44 55.132 594.19 101.311 225.19 64.85 691.61 73.747 239.24 61.604 861.8170.000***
Intake of dietarycalcium - 24 hrsdietary recall
218.25 59.671 212.67 65.089 263.54 64.225 212.55 63.675 542.48 120.425 214.38 60.621 665.19 81.911 220.30 58.395 657.8830.000***
***p<0.001
Table 27 presents the measurement of aspects of self-efficacy over a period of time from the pretest to posttest-III between
the study and control groups. There was an improvement in the mean scores of all the aspects of self-efficacy in the study group
than the control group which resulted in statistically significant differences at p< 0.001.
Page 40
115
Section 4.3 Effectiveness of OPP on bone mineral density
Table 28. Percentage distribution of the bone mineral density scores
during posttest-III in the study and control groups.
Study (n=81) Control (n=83) Posttest-IIIBMD score No. % No. %
-1 to -2.5 71 87.7 59 71.1
< -2.5 10 12.3 24 28.9
Table 28 shows the percentage distribution of the subjects in the BMD
score category: -1 to -2.5 (osteopenia) and < -2.5 (osteoporosis) during the
posttest-III. In the study group 71 (87.7%) subjects had BMD score range of -
1 to -2.5 and in the control group, 59 (71.1%) subjects. In the < -2.5 BMD
score range, there were 10 (12.3%) subjects in the study group whereas in the
control group more number of subjects [24 (28.9%)] were noticed to have
osteoporosis.
Page 41
116
Table 29. Comparison of mean and SD of the bone mineral density
between the study and control groups during pre and posttest-III.
Pretest Posttest-IIIGroup
Mean SD
Meandifference Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Study -1.754 0.44 -1.891 0.51
Control -1.715 0.41-0.039
-2.192 0.440.301
3.9940.000***
***p<0.001
Table 29 explains the comparison of mean and SD values of the bone
mineral density between the study and control groups during the pretest and
posttest-III. The mean BMD of the study group was -1.754 in the pretest and
it was decreased to -1.891 in the posttest-III. In the control group, during
pretest the mean BMD was -1.715 and in the posttest it was decreased further
to -2.192. These differences in the mean scores between the groups showed a
statistical significance at p< 0.001.
Page 42
117
Table 30. Comparison of bone mineral density within the study and
control groups during pretest and posttest-III
Pretest Posttest-IIIGroup
Mean SD Mean SD
Meandifference
t valuep value
Study -1.754 0.44 -1.891 0.51 0.137 5.0840.000***
Control -1.715 0.41 -2.192 0.44 0.477 17.6630.000***
***p<0.001
Table 30 gives the details of mean, SD and t values of both the groups.
The comparison of mean scores within the groups showed that the mean
BMD scores decreased in the study and control groups (-1.891 & -2.192) than
that of their respective pretest BMD scores (-1.754 & -1.715). The calculated
t values yielded a statistically significant difference at p<0.001 in both the
groups.
Page 43
118
Figure 16. Comparison of bone mineral density of the study participants in pretestand posttest-III.
-1.754 -1.715-1.891
-2.192
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0Study group Control group
Mea
n ±
SD
Pretest Posttest-III