707 WK11 Assignment
707 WK11 Assignment Paper
707 WK11 Assignment Paper
An analysis of the data was conducted to determine the effects of the intervention on the population of interest. In this case, the research was conducted to explore the effect of the intervention on self-efficacy for managing chronic disease. 25 participants were recruited in the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods. Gender analysis of the participants revealed that 14 (56%) are females while 11 (44%) are males (see Figure 1). A review of age reveals that the participants had a mean age of 42.64 years (SD: 18.12) with the minimum age being 19 years and maximum age being 82 years (see Table 1). A review of ethnicity reveals that 10 participants (40%) are Hispanic/Latino, 8 participants (24%) are White, 6 participants (24%) are African American, and 1 participant (4%) is Native American. A review of internet use for health information among the participants reveals that 13 participants (52%) do not use the internet for health information while 12 participants (48%) use the internet for health information. 707 WK11 Assignment Paper
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Figure 1. Count of gender
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for participants’ ages
Mean 42.64
Standard Error 3.623479
Median 41
Mode 22
Standard Deviation 18.11739
Sample Variance 328.24
Kurtosis -0.65102
Skewness 0.539822
Range 63
Minimum 19
Maximum 82
Sum 1066
Count 25
Figure 2. Count of ethnicity
Figure 3. Count of internet use for health information
The study participants were evaluated for performance in six self-efficacy measures. A review of the confidence scores for the first question on self-efficacy reveals that mean performance improved by 46% from a mean of 5.56 (SD=1.3254) for the pre-intervention group to a mean of 8.12 (SD=0.7257) for the post-intervention group. The pre-intervention group has a larger data range (range = 5) compared to the post-intervention group (range = 2), indicating higher variability of self-efficacy in the pre-intervention group when compared to the post-intervention group. A review of the confidence scores for the second question on self-efficacy reveals that mean performance improved by 22% from a mean of 5.28 (SD=1.2083) for the pre-intervention group to a mean of 6.44 (SD=0.8699) for the post-intervention group. The pre-intervention group has a larger data range (range = 5) compared to the post-intervention group (range = 4), indicating higher variability of self-efficacy in the pre-intervention group when compared to the post-intervention group. A review of the confidence scores for the third question on self-efficacy reveals that mean performance improved by 49% from a mean of 5.28 (SD=1.1372) for the pre-intervention group to a mean of 7.88 (SD=0.7810) for the post-intervention group. The pre-intervention group has a larger data range (range = 5) compared to the post-intervention group (range = 2), indicating higher variability of self-efficacy in the pre-intervention group when compared to the post-intervention group. A review of the confidence scores for the fourth question on self-efficacy reveals that mean performance improved by 26% from a mean of 4.84 (SD=1.0678) for the pre-intervention group to a mean of 6.08 (SD=1.2220) for the post-intervention group. The pre-intervention group has a smaller data range (range = 4) compared to the post-intervention group (range = 5), indicating lower variability of self-efficacy in the pre-intervention group when compared to the post-intervention group. A review of the confidence scores for the fifth question on self-efficacy reveals that mean performance improved by 37% from a mean of 4.92 (SD=0.8124) for the pre-intervention group to a mean of 6.72 (SD=0.9363) for the post-intervention group. The pre-intervention group has an equal data range to the post-intervention group (range = 3), indicating equal variability of self-efficacy in the pre-intervention group when compared to the post-intervention group. A review of the confidence scores for the sixth question on self-efficacy reveals that mean performance improved by 32% from a mean of 6.08 (SD=0.9539) for the pre-intervention group to a mean of 8.04 (SD=0.8406) for the post-intervention group. The pre-intervention group has a larger data range (range = 3) compared to the post-intervention group (range = 2), indicating higher variability of self-efficacy in the pre-intervention group when compared to the post-intervention group. A review of the total confidence scores for the six questions on self-efficacy reveals that mean performance improved by 35% from a mean of 5.33 (SD=0.7810) for the pre-intervention group to a mean of 7.21 (SD=0.4423) for the post-intervention group. The pre-intervention group has a larger data range (range = 3.2) compared to the post-intervention group (range = 1.9), indicating higher variability of self-efficacy in the pre-intervention group when compared to the post-intervention group (see Table 2; Figure 4).
Table 2. Confidence score for post-intervention and pre-intervention groups concerning self-efficacy measures for managing chronic disease 707 WK11 Assignment Paper
Question Group n M SD Range
1. Pre-intervention 25 5.56 1.3254 3 – 8
Post-intervention 25 8.12 0.7257 7 – 9
2. Pre-intervention 25 5.28 1.2083 3 – 8
Post-intervention 25 6.44 0.8699 4 – 8
3. Pre-intervention 25 5.28 1.1372 3 – 8
Post-intervention 25 7.88 0.7810 7 – 9
4. Pre-intervention 25 4.84 1.0678 3 – 7
Post-intervention 25 6.08 1.2220 4 – 9
5. Pre-intervention 25 4.92 0.8124 3 – 6
Post-intervention 25 6.72 0.9363 5 – 8
6. Pre-intervention 25 6.08 0.9539 5 – 8
Post-intervention 25 8.04 0.8406 6 – 9
Total scale scores Pre-intervention 25 5.33 0.7810 3.8 – 7
Post-intervention 25 7.21 0.4423 6.3 – 8.2
Figure 4. Bar graph of total scale score for the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups
Overall, the results indicate improved self-efficacy of chronic disease by 35% among the study participants following the intervention. The higher mean values and lower ranges reported in the intervention group show that the participants are more knowledgeable about the activities they should undertake to improve their capacity to manage chronic disease. As such, the research shows that the intervention is effective in improving self-efficacy confidence scores for chronic disease within the study population.
Examples_of_visually
NUR_707_Assignment__3_Spring_2020
707 WK11 Assignment Paper
