Comparison Effects of Leaflets on TRP in Intervention and Nonintervention Community

We conclude that the effect of the intervention leaflet was greater than the conventional leaflet. However, in order to verify this data, an Independent Sample-test was conducted to compare significant change between the intervention and non-intervention group. Table 23.5 shows that the mean score of 7 out of 12 TRP variables in the post-test were significantly different between the conventional and intervention leaflets.

The intervention leaflet affected residents’ knowledge of TEWS-family (Levene’s test p = 0.794, t = 2.298 df = 171, p = 0.023, 2-tailed) better than the conventional leaflet with a mean difference of 0.136. Another significant difference in mean score between the two groups was for TEWS-community. In the intervention group it was 0.44 and in the non-intervention group 0.30 (Levene’s test p = 0.946, t = 4.964, df = 171, p = 0.014, 2-tailed). TRP EP-individual was also significant in intervention (Levene’s test p = 0.008, t = 2.519, df = 171, p = 0.013, 2-tailed). The next most

Table 23.5 Independent-sample test between community intervention group and non-intervention group

Indicators

Levene’s

test

T-test for equality of means

F

Sig.

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

difference

TEWS-

individual

Equal var. assumed

1.399

0.239

1.325

0.187

0.187

0.064

Equal var. not assumed

TEWS-family

Equal var. assumed

0.069

0.794

2.298

0.023

0.023*

-0.136

Equal var. not assumed

TEWS-

community

Equal var. assumed

0.005

0.946

2.496

0.014

0.014*

-0.140

Equal var. not assumed

TEWS-society

Equal var. assumed

5.843

0.017

1.379

0.170

0.170

-0.074

Equal var. not assumed

EP-individual

Equal var. assumed

7.258

0.008

2.525

0.013

0.013*

-0.103

Equal var. not assumed

EP-family

Equal var. assumed

2.829

0.094

4.983

0.000

0.000*

-0.209

Equal var. not assumed

EP-community

Equal var. assumed

0.460

0.499

0.389

0.698

0.698

0.017

Equal var. not assumed

EP-society

Equal var. assumed

5.296

0.023

2.423

0.016

0.016*

-0.126

Equal var. not assumed

CA-individual

Equal var. assumed

0.636

0.426

1.478

0.970

0.970

-0.065

Equal var. not assumed

CA-family

Equal var. assumed

0.003

0.958

0.038

0.012

0.012*

0.001

Equal var. not assumed

CA-community

Equal var. assumed

1.423

0.235

2.551

0.058

0.158

-0.134

Equal var. not assumed

CA-society

Equal var. assumed

0.510

0.476

1.906

0.021

0.021*

-0.097

Equal var. not assumed

significant TRP in intervention compared to non-intervention was EP-family (Levene’s test p = 0.094, t = 4.983, df = 171, p = 0.000, 2-tailed). The intervention leaflet was also more effective in TRP EP-society where the differences of mean was -0.126 (Levene’s test p = 0.023, t = 2.423, df = 171, p = 0.016, 2-tailed). In terms of TRP Capacity, there were only two significant differences, namely CA-community and CA-society.

CA-community showed significant differences (Levene’s test p = 0.235, t = 2.551, df = 171, p = 0.012, 2-tailed) in intervention compared to the non-intervention group. Like CA-community, CA-society was also significant (Levene’s test p = 0.476, t = 1.906, df = 171, p = 0.058, 2-tailed) compared to the non-intervention group.

In conclusion, the intervention leaflet partially affected residents in adopting TRP such as TEWS-family, TEWS-community, EP-individual, EP-family, EP-society, CA-community and CA-society.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >