Research Article
Barriers to Diet and Exercise among Nepalese Type 2 Diabetic Patients
Table 2
Barriers to dietary compliance among the respondents.
| | Determinants of dietary barrier | Yes, (%) | Compliant | Noncompliant
Odds ratio (95% CI) | | Univariate | |
| | Self-efficacy (participant believed to be capable of dietary compliance) | 192 (97.5) | Reference | 0.49 (0.09–2.55) | 0.30 (0.05–1.64) | | Social acceptability (believed to have family, community support for dietary compliance) | 184 (93.4) | Reference | 0.13 (0.03–0.54) | 0.14 (0.03–0.58) | | Action efficacy (believed dietary compliance will control blood glucose) | 154 (78.2) | Reference | 1.08 (0.55–2.14) | 1.16 (0.57–2.34) | | Reminder (believed it is difficult to remember to comply) | 48 (24.4) | Reference | 3.15 (1.62–6.15) | 2.77 (1.38–5.53) | | Accessibility of materials (believed they have access to healthy food options) | 28 (14.2) | Reference | 0.47 (0.21–1.05) | 0.51 (0.22–1.16) | | Perceived severity (believed diabetes is a serious health problem) | 150 (76.1) | Reference | 0.74 (0.38–1.42) | 0.64 (0.32–1.25) | | Perceived risk (believed noncompliance to diet will lead to serious diabetes complications) | 131 (66.5) | Reference | 0.77 (0.42–1.39) | 0.73 (0.40–1.36) |
|
|
adjusted for age, gender, education, smoking, and alcohol.
|
