Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Validation of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire - Revised in six European countries


Fernandes-Jesus, Maria; Beccaria, Franca; Demant, Jakob; Fleig, Lena; Menezes, Isabel; Scholz, Urte; de Visser, Richard; Cooke, Richard (2016). Validation of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire - Revised in six European countries. Addictive Behaviors, 62:91-98.

Abstract

Objectives.
Extending individual planning of health behaviour change to the level of the
dyad, dyadic planning refers to a target person and a planning partner jointly planning the
target person’s health behaviour change. To date, predictors of dyadic planning have not
been systematically investigated. Integrating cognitive predictors of individual planning
with four established predictor domains of social support provision, we propose a
framework of predictors of dyadic planning. Including target persons’ and partners’
perspectives, we examine these predictor domains in the context of prostate cancer
patients’ rehabilitative pelvic floor exercise (PFE) following radical prostatectomy.

Design.
Longitudinal data from 175 patients and their partners were analysed in a study
with four post-surgery assessments across 6 months.

Methods.
PFE-related dyadic planning was assessed from both partners together with
indicators from four predictor domains: context, target person, partner, and relationship
factors. Individual planning and social support served as covariates.

Results.
Findings from two-level models nesting repeated assessments in individuals
showed that context (patients’ incontinence), target person (i.e., positive affect and self-
efficacy), and relationship factors (i.e., relationship satisfaction) were uniquely associated
with dyadic planning, whereas partner factors (i.e., positive and negative affects) were not.
Factors predicting patients’ and partners’ accounts of dyadic planning differed.

Conclusions.
Resembling prior findings on antecedents of support provision in this
context, partner factors did not prevail as unique predictors of dyadic planning,
whereas indicators from all other predictor domains did. To establish predictive
direction, future work should use lagged predictions with shorter intermeasurement
intervals.

Abstract

Objectives.
Extending individual planning of health behaviour change to the level of the
dyad, dyadic planning refers to a target person and a planning partner jointly planning the
target person’s health behaviour change. To date, predictors of dyadic planning have not
been systematically investigated. Integrating cognitive predictors of individual planning
with four established predictor domains of social support provision, we propose a
framework of predictors of dyadic planning. Including target persons’ and partners’
perspectives, we examine these predictor domains in the context of prostate cancer
patients’ rehabilitative pelvic floor exercise (PFE) following radical prostatectomy.

Design.
Longitudinal data from 175 patients and their partners were analysed in a study
with four post-surgery assessments across 6 months.

Methods.
PFE-related dyadic planning was assessed from both partners together with
indicators from four predictor domains: context, target person, partner, and relationship
factors. Individual planning and social support served as covariates.

Results.
Findings from two-level models nesting repeated assessments in individuals
showed that context (patients’ incontinence), target person (i.e., positive affect and self-
efficacy), and relationship factors (i.e., relationship satisfaction) were uniquely associated
with dyadic planning, whereas partner factors (i.e., positive and negative affects) were not.
Factors predicting patients’ and partners’ accounts of dyadic planning differed.

Conclusions.
Resembling prior findings on antecedents of support provision in this
context, partner factors did not prevail as unique predictors of dyadic planning,
whereas indicators from all other predictor domains did. To establish predictive
direction, future work should use lagged predictions with shorter intermeasurement
intervals.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
4 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
2 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology
Dewey Decimal Classification:150 Psychology
Language:English
Date:November 2016
Deposited On:30 Nov 2016 13:37
Last Modified:02 Feb 2018 10:51
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0306-4603
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.06.010
PubMed ID:27344012

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library