Table 2

StandardizedT-scores of attitude (pros, cons), social influence (modeling, support) and self-efficacy (social, emotional, routine) in the stage groups
PC; n = 58 CP; n = 39 AM; n = 73 LSD contrasts
Pros 49.76 52.50 48.09 PC, CP; PC, AM; CP > AM
Cons 49.73 51.14 49.32 PC, CP, AM
Social modeling 46.69 48.66 52.97 PC, CP < AM
Social support 47.49 52.45 51.09 PC < CP, AM
Social self-efficacy 48.83 44.03 54.14 PC > CP < AM; PC < AM
Emotional self-efficacy 50.09 42.05 54.05 PC > CP < AM; PC < AM
Routine self-efficacy 49.70 44.15 53.45 PC > CP < AM; PC < AM

Note. PC = precontemplation; CP = contemplation/preparation; AM = action/maintenance.

CP < AM: the mean score of CP is significantly lower than that of AM.

PC, CP, AM: the mean scores of PC, CP and AM are equal.

Schulz et al.

Schulz et al. BMC Public Health 2012 12:360   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-360

Open Data