Skip to main content
Download PDF

Empirical validation of the information-motivation-behavioral skills model of gestational weight management behavior: a framework for intervention

BMC Public Health volume 23, Article number: 130 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Unhealthy gestational weight gain is a modifiable risk factor for adverse maternal and child health. Appropriate and effective intervention strategies that focus on behavioral change or maintenance are critical in weight management during pregnancy. Our aim was to uncover the influencing factors and psychosocial mechanisms of gestational weight control behavior, and to construct a behavioral model suitable for intervention based on Information-Motivation-Behavioral skills (IMB) model.

Methods

A sample of 559 pregnant women from a municipal maternal and child healthcare facility in Jiangsu Province, China was enrolled in this cross-sectional empirical study. Partial least square structural equation modelling was used to verify the hypothesized model, and post hoc analyses was used to test the effect of parity and pre-pregnancy BMI on the model.

Results

The IMB model elements can predict gestational weight management (GWM) behavior well, with information being the most influential factor. As predicted, information affects GWM directly (β = 0.325, p < 0.05) and indirectly (β = 0.054, p < 0.05) through behavioral skills. Likewise, motivation has direct (β = 0.461, p < 0.05) effects on GWM, and has indirect (β = 0.071, p < 0.05) effects through behavioral skills. Behavioral skills have a direct impact (β = 0.154, p < 0.05). The model had a goodness of fit (GOF = 0.421) and was robust when tested in subgroups of different parity or pre-pregnancy BMI.

Conclusion

Findings from this study supported the predictions of the IMB model for GWM behavior, and identified its modifiable determinants. The tested behavior model for GWM can serve as a new validated intervention strategy in weight management among pregnant women.

Peer Review reports

Background

Gestational weight gain is a public health issue that deserves global attention. An increasing number of evidences has suggested that gestational weight gain above or below the recommended weight gain range is associated with many pregnancy-related adverse health outcomes [1, 2]. Maintaining a healthy diet and adequate amount of exercise are effective strategies to reduce excessive weight gain during pregnancy [3]. Nevertheless, globally, various countries and regions have reported unreasonable diet and insufficient exercise problems of pregnant women [4, 5]. These unhealthy behaviors can lead to serious adverse pregnancy outcomes [6, 7], causing a heavy burden on individuals, families, and the society.

Excessive weight gain during pregnancy is an important issue of worldwide concern. More than 50% of American pregnant women and nearly 40% to 50% of Chinese pregnant women have been reported to gain excessive weight during pregnancy [8, 9]. Meanwhile, insufficient weight gain during pregnancy is also prevalent worldwide [10]. Also, increase in insufficient or excessive gestational weight gain during the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed [11], as they develop emotional eating with insufficient physical activity [12]. Hence, strengthening the weight management intervention for pregnant women is a key issue.

Different health behavior theories have been combined to explain and intervene in weight management during pregnancy, such as planned behavior theory [13], protection motivation theory [14], social cognitive theory [15], and PRECEDE-PROCEED model [16], etc. Multiple studies have found theory-based interventions were more effective in affecting and sustaining behavioral changes than non-theory-based interventions [14, 17]. However, previous meta-analyses found that the results of the two types of interventions were similar, and even the effect of theory-based interventions was worse [18, 19]. This might be ascribed to the limited suitability of most existing intervention theories for weight management during pregnancy, prompting us to explore more appropriate behavioral models.

In this study, we applied the Information-Motivation-Behavior skills(IMB) model proposed by Fisher et al. to construct our hypothesized model (Fig. 1). The IMB model elucidated that the generation and maintenance of behavior is determined by three factors: information, motivation, and behavioral skills, and there are complex pathways between these factors [20]. It has empirically applied in the interpretation and intervention of various health related behaviors [21,22,23]. Using a structural equation modelling(SEM) approach, we aimed to: (1) test whether our hypothesized model holds, that gestational weight management(GWM) is impacted by information, motivation and behavioral skills and (2) assess the direct, indirect, and overall effects between these three factors on GWM. Specifically, we found that parity and pre-pregnancy body mass index(BMI) were the frequently mentioned factors that associated with gestational weight gain [24, 25], which may interfere with our model. Hence, we considered parity and pre-pregnancy BMI for post hoc analysis to test the model’s robustness.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hypothesized structural equation model with two mediation tests. Ellipses represent the latent variables. The “ + ” between ellipses represent the hypothetical path relationship between the key variables

Full size image

Methods

Study design and participants

To verify our hypothesized model, we adopted purpose sampling to select the survey objects. In this purpose sampling, we focused on the individuals who can provide the adequate information required to achieve the goal of the research [26]. Our survey site was Changzhou Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Jiangsu Province, China. It is a municipal public specialized medical institution that undertakes more than half of the annual delivery volume in the city. We invited pregnant women from obstetrics clinic of the hospital who met the inclusion criteria to participate. The inclusion criteria were (1) not less than 18 years old; (2) the duration of pregnancy (pregnancy period >  = 14 weeks); (3) singleton pregnancy; (4) without medical complications such as heart, liver and kidney, and diseases like primary hypertension and diabetes; (5) able to communicate and can self-report independently.

We recruited four medical staff who had received unified investigation training as investigators. The data was collected by a face-to-face questionnaire investigation. The survey took place from September 2020 to October 2020. Following the rule of tenfold scale item numbers and considering 15% of invalid questionnaires, we determined that the minimum sample size for this study was 435 (since the number of scale items in this study was 37). A total of 585 pregnant women were recruited, out of which the questionnaires of 26 pregnant women were eliminated due to the omission of key information. Finally, the questionnaire of 559 pregnant women were included for analysis. A verbal consent was obtained from the respondents before the investigation. The investigation lasted for about 15–20 min. After the questionnaire investigation, each pregnant woman received a postpartum rehabilitation service voucher provided by the hospital as a gift. This research was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of Nanjing Medical University (No. (2020)63).

Measures

Questionnaires based on the IMB model

This part is about information, motivation, and behavioral skills related to GWM as defined based on the IMB model. We measured it with three self-designed scales, and all the items were designed by learning the operational definitions of IMB theory and reviewing similar works on gestational weight management [27,28,29]. For the content of these self-designed scale items, we have invited experts to evaluate and conducted a small sample pilot test. All items were measured on a 5-point scale(1 = completely unknown/disagree to 5 = completely understood/agree). ①The information subscale(included 5 items, Cronbach's α = 0.809). This was used to measure the pregnant women's knowledge of GWM, such as "Adult’s body mass index standards and how to calculate it". The higher the score, the better the understanding of the information. ②The motivation subscale(included 5 items, Cronbach's α = 0.847). This was also used to measure pregnant women’s motivation for GWM, including personal motivation and social motivation. For instance, "I think it is necessary to manage weight during pregnancy" and "The medical staffs encouraged me to manage weight during pregnancy". The higher the score, the higher the motivation. ③The behavioral skills subscale (included 5 items, Cronbach's α = 0.840). It measured the pregnant women's mastery of the skills required for weight management during pregnancy, such as "I have the ability to assess whether my amount of gestational weight gain in the weeks of pregnancy is reasonable". The higher the score, the higher the mastery of behavioral skills. For this whole scale, the Cronbach’s α = 0.894, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value = 0.888, and the p value of Bartlett’s test < 0.001. Those all indicated the reliability and validity of this scale were acceptable.

Gestational weight management behavior

The pregnancy weight management strategy scale compiled by Yan et al. was used to assess weight management behavior during pregnancy [30]. There were 22 items involved a measure of diet, physical activity, self-monitoring, and self-regulation. All the items were evaluated on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always). We use the total scores of each questionnaire to represent the respondent's weight management status. The total score ranged from 22 to 110. A higher total score implies better behaviors in GWM. The Cronbach's α of the modified scale was 0.823, the KMO was 0.825, and the Bartlett’s test p value < 0.001. These values suggested that this modified scale has certain reliability and validity.

Maternal demographic and biomedical characteristics

Participants also reported their birth date, occupation, educational level, average annual family income, parity, and their pre-pregnancy height and weight.

Statistical analysis

We used SPSS23.0 software to describe the participants’ basic characteristics, the scores of each dimension of the IMB model, and the GWM score. Then, we evaluated the bivariate correlation between the weight management related IMB model factors and GWM behavior. Structural equation modeling was observed to be a very robust and powerful statistical tool in many disciplines [31], so we adopted the SEM method to assess the hypothesized model. Before analysis, the normality of the data was checked on the basis of kurtosis and skewness. Some items had peaks greater than the suggested criterion of 0.3, suggesting that the data were not normally distributed [32]. Partial least square structural equation modeling showed better performance in non-normally distributed data and was suitable for model validation of theoretical development [33], so we utilized SmartPLS3.3.1 software for analysis.

To perform SEM, in the first stage, we assessed the measurement model’s reliability and validity of each dimension of the gestational weight management IMB model. The factor loading(generally should be > 0.7, but Hair et al. suggested that 0.4 ~ 0.7 was also acceptable under the condition that the average variance extracted(AVE) was > 0.5 [34]). Cronbach's α(> 0.7), composite reliability(CR, > 0.7) and AVE(> 0.5) were used to assess reliability. Fornell-Larcker standard and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT, < 0.85) were used to assess validity [35, 36]. The second stage was to evaluate the structural model to test the relationship between the various dimensions. We conducted 5000 bootstrapping algorithms to assess the significance of the path coefficients, and evaluate the structural model’s validity according to the suggested values of R2, Q2 and goodness of fit(GOF) [35, 37].

To test the robustness of the model, we performed a post hoc analysis using t-test (two-tailed) and partial least square multi-group analysis(PLS-MGA) function, mainly to test whether the model was affected by the parity(0 = primipara; 1 = multipara) and pre-pregnancy BMI(0 = normal weight; 1 = underweight; 2 = overweight & obesity). The significance level was two-sided α = 0.05.

Results

Descriptive analysis for the basic characteristics of respondents

In Table 1, participant’s average age was 29.2(SD = 4.3) years old; 39.9% of pregnant women had college educational level or above; 58.3% were employed; 47.2% had an average annual family income of more than 120,000(CNY). The average pre-pregnancy BMI was 22.4 kg/m2(SD = 3.5, range15.6–40.6), which accounted for 54.9% of pregnant women’s pre-pregnancy BMI within the normal range; primipara and multipara accounted for 46.0% and 54.0%, respectively. The motivation score was at an upper-middle level, and the information and behavioral skills scores were at a middle level. GWM score was at a moderate level(57.8 ± 12.6).

Table 1 Basic characteristics of pregnant women (N = 559)
Full size table

Bivariate relationship among key variables

The binary correlation between the key variables in the path model showed that GWM positively correlated with information(r = 0.471), motivation(r = 0.389) and behavioral skills(r = 0.419), p < 0.05. Behavioral skill had a positive correlation information(r = 0.526) and motivation(r = 0.595), p < 0.05 (Table 2).

Table 2 Bivariate correlation analysis between key variables
Full size table

Measurement model results

The factor loadings ranged from 0.668 to 0.852. The Cronbach's ɑ range for each dimension was 0.837 ~ 0.849, and the CR values were between 0.885 and 0.892, indicating a sufficient internal consistency. The AVE values ranged from 0.609 to 0.624, indicating a good convergence validity (Table 3).

Table 3 Reliability and convergence validity of the measurement model
Full size table

The AVE root values were bigger than the correlation coefficients between the dimensions, and the HTMT values between the dimensions were all < 0.85, indicating that the measurement models had a good discriminative validity (Table 4).

Table 4 Differential validity of the measurement model
Full size table

Structural model results

The R2 of behavioral skills and GWM behavior were 0.458 and 0.288, respectively, indicating a higher predictive power. The Q2 values of behavioral skills and GWM were 0.277 and 0.280, respectively, indicating the predictive correlation of the structural model. The model had a good degree of fit(GOF = 0.421).

Figure 2 showed the standardized path coefficients of the hypothesized model. Information, motivation, and behavioral skills all had an impact on GWM. In Table 5, the results showed that information directly and positively affected behavioral skills(β = 0.348) and GWM behavior(β = 0.325), and indirectly affected GWM behavior(β = 0.054) through behavioral skills, p < 0.001. Motivation can have a direct positive effect on behavioral skills(b = 0.461) and weight management behaviors during pregnancy(β = 0.174), and an indirect positive effect on GWM behaviors through behavioral skills(β = 0.071), p < 0.001. Behavioral skills only had a direct positive effect on weight management behavior(β = 0.154, p < 0.01). For the total effects, information was the most important factor affecting GWM.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Path relationship diagram. Ellipses represent the latent variables. Arrows between ellipses represent standardized regression path coefficients. The values in brackets are the t statistics. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Full size image
Table 5 Decomposition of the effect of IMB factors on GWM
Full size table

Post hoc analysis: parity and pre-pregnancy BMI

In Table 6, there were no differences in the scores of each construct between the different parities. And there was no difference in the scores of all the variables between the underweight and normal weight group. But compared with the pre-pregnancy overweight and obesity group, the normal weight group had more behavioral skills, p < 0.01. The PLS-MGA results in Table 7 showed that there were no significant differences in all path relationships between different parities and pre-pregnancy BMI groups, indicating that parity and pre-pregnancy BMI had no effect on the model.

Table 6 Differences in IMB factors and GWM behaviors of pregnant women with different parity and pre-pregnancy BMI
Full size table
Table 7 Multi-group analysis of parity and pre-pregnancy BMI
Full size table

Discussion

Based on the IMB model, we constructed a behavioral model for gestational weight management, and conducted an empirical research among Chinese pregnant women. Our results supported all the hypotheses, confirming that pregnant women’s weight management behavior is affected by information, motivation and behavioral skills factors. The interpretation of GWM behaviors by the model was good (R2 = 0.288) [37]. We also performed a post-hoc analysis to test the robustness of the model. And the results suggested that our model were applicable to explaining pregnant women's GWM behaviors, both in the multiparous and primiparous, and no matter how their pre-pregnancy BMI status was.

Consistent with the original IMB model, our results showed that information can directly affect GWM behavior, and indirectly affect through behavioral skills. Information (knowledge that highly relate with behaviors) is an essential prerequisite for reducing risky behavior, and it can also stimulate behavioral skills to change and maintain behavior [20]. Our results confirmed this, indicating the multiple roles of information in influencing healthy behaviors. Previous qualitative studies found that pregnant women were not aware of the adverse effects of overweight or obesity during pregnancy, and misunderstanding about gestational diet and weight management [38, 39]. A quantitative survey in Australia also revealed that pregnant women have insufficient knowledge of the Institute of Medicine gestational weight gain guidelines and pregnancy-specific dietary recommendations [40]. Knowledge is essential in the formation and change of behavior. Behavioral theories have shown that good attitude which transforms into good behavior can only be achieved when someone has adequate knowledge [41]. Furthermore, the overall effects, from our results showed that information was the most important influencing factor. Therefore, interventions to encourage pregnant women in undertaking weight management programs can focus on provision of adequate information.

A strong motivation is also required to facilitate the occurrence and maintenance of behavior aside adequate information and proficient behavioral skills [20], as it was observed in our study. GWM related motivation affects maintaining a healthy diet and appropriate physical activity during pregnancy. Previous works have confirmed the important role of motivation in weight management. The higher pregnant women awareness of their ideal pregnancy weight, the more likely their gestational weight gain be within the normal range [42]. Besides personal motivation, social motivation also had an influence on GWM behaviors. A study reported that maternity health professionals’ encouragement for pregnant women increased their GWM enthusiasm, and family support was very crucial [43]. Several studies highlighted the importance of motivational interventions for pregnant women. For instance, Hill et al. suggested that personal motivation is a key factor that can be considered when improving pregnant women’s dietary and physical activity behavior [44]; Furness et al. pointed out that motivation and social support are important factors for weight management, and interventions should focus on motivation strategies and social support facilitation [45]. Therefore, the maternal motivation can be enhanced from two aspects: strengthening the personal motivation and social motivation concerning to GWM.

Our findings also found the relationship between behavioral skills and health behaviors. Although maintaining a reasonable diet and exercise are the most effective ways to control gestational weight, it involves series of complex behaviors. Previous studies have shown that pregnant women had good understanding of pregnancy nutrition guidelines, but usually lacked the confidence and ability to put them into practice [46]. In terms of exercise, studies have also shown that pregnant women are not clear about which physical activity they can perform during pregnancy, as well as the frequency and intensity of the activity [28]. These uncertainties hinder their ability to perform physical activity. Studies have also reported that pregnant women often lack the ability to assess whether their weight gain is appropriate [47], which is not conducive for them to develop rational weight management strategies. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have validated the association between behavioral skills and GWM behaviors through a quantitative study, however, our results indicated that mastering more behavioral skills is a facilitator for weight management. Hence, in collaboration with previous qualitative researches, interventions can focus on training and guidance of pregnant women's behavioral skills.

Strengths and limitations

A hypothetical model to predict gestational weight management was proposed based on IMB model for the first time, and was successfully verified through our empirical study. On the one hand, our research considered the influencing factors and mechanism of weight management during pregnancy with a more comprehensive perspective. On the other hand, it also promoted the application of the IMB model in the field of GWM. Nevertheless, this study also had some limitations: First, the cross-sectional study limits the causal inference of our findings, and longitudinal studies were needed for further verification. In addition, "stages of gestation" can be considered as a variable to construct a more rigorous and dynamic IMB model of gestational weight management. Second, although we considered measuring content of various factors as much as possible when designing the questionnaire, IMB model is rarely used in GWM studies, hence, the evaluating items might not be comprehensive [48]. Therefore, in the future, qualitative studies in the field of weight management during pregnancy can be carried out based on this theory, as well as reviewing similar studies, to explore a more comprehensive and accurate scale. It is recommended that interventionists investigate and understand the current status of information, motivation and behavioral skills among pregnant women before applying this model for maternal weight management, and then carry out targeted intervention guidance. Third, we employed a purposeful sampling method, and we selected pregnant women from only one hospital to validate the hypothesized model. Therefore, there may be selection bias. Forth, as this study used a self-administered questionnaire, information bias exists.

Conclusions

Results indicate the gestational weight management behavior model which developed from IMB can be used as a theoretical guidance and intervention framework to carry out weight management in pregnant women. Information, motivation, and behavioral skills were all necessary factors and should be paid attention to simultaneously in weight management during pregnancy.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. E-mail: pengxueqing1230@163.com.

Abbreviations

IMB:

Information-Motivation-Behavioral skills model

GWM:

Gestational weight management

SEM:

Structural equation modelling

BMI:

Body mass index

KMO:

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

CR:

Composite Reliability

AVE:

Average Variance Extracted

HTMT:

Heterotrait-Monotrait

GOF:

Goodness of fit

PLS-MGA:

Partial least square multi-group analysis

In:

Information

Mo:

Motivation

BS:

Behavioral skills

References

  1. LifeCycle Project-Maternal O, Childhood Outcomes Study G, Voerman E, Santos S, Inskip H, Amiano P, Barros H, Charles MA, Chatzi L, Chrousos GP, et al. Association of gestational weight gain with adverse maternal and infant outcomes. JAMA. 2019;321(17):1702–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Catalano PM, Shankar K. Obesity and pregnancy: mechanisms of short term and long term adverse consequences for mother and child. BMJ. 2017;356(j1):1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ruchat SM, Davenport MH, Giroux I, Hillier M, Batada A, Sopper MM, Hammond JMS, Mottola MF. Nutrition and exercise reduce excessive weight gain in normal-weight pregnant women. Med Sci Sport Exer. 2012;44(8):1419–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Huang Y, Luo BR. A survey of maternal dietary behavior based on theory of reasoned action. J Sichuan Univ (Med Sci Edi). 2015;46(3):444–8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Voidazan S, Tarcea M, Abram Z, Georgescu M, Marginean C, Grama O, Buicu F, Ruta F. Associations between lifestyle factors and smoking status during pregnancy in a group of Romanian women. Birth Defects Res. 2018;110(6):519–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mate A, Reyes-Goya C, Santana-Garrido Á, Vázquez CM. Lifestyle, maternal nutrition and healthy pregnancy. Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2021;19(2):132–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Faden VB, Hanna E, Graubard BI. The effect of positive and negative health behavior during gestation on pregnancy outcome. J Subst Abuse. 1997;9:63–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Deputy NP, Sharma AJ, Kim SY. Gestational weight gain - United States, 2012 and 2013. Mmwr-Morbid Mortal W. 2015;64(43):1215–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang J, Duan YF, Pang XH, Jiang S, Yin SA, Yang ZY, Lai JQ. Gestational weight gain and optimal ranges in Chinese mothers giving singleton and full-term births in 2013. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018;52(1):31–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang DQ, Wang ML, Darling AM, Perumal N, Liu EJ, Danaei G, Fawzi WW. Gestational weight gain in low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling analysis using nationally representative data. Bmj Glob Health. 2020;5(11):e003423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Du M, Yang J, Han N, Liu M, Liu J. Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):e047900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang J, Zhang YM, Huo SS, Ma YD, Ke YL, Wang PY, Zhao A. Emotional eating in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with dietary intake and gestational weight gain. Nutrients. 2020;12(8):2250.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kennelly MA, Ainscough K, Lindsay K, Gibney E, Mc Carthy M, McAuliffe FM. Pregnancy, exercise and nutrition research study with smart phone app support (Pears): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016;46:92–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaston A, Prapavessis H. Maternal-fetal disease information as a source of exercise motivation during pregnancy. Health Psychol. 2009;28(6):726–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nagourney EM, Goodman D, Lam Y, Hurley KM, Henderson J, Surkan PJ. Obese women’s perceptions of weight gain during pregnancy: a theory-based analysis. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(12):2228–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. de Jersey SJ, Mallan K, Callaway L, Daniels LA, Nicholson JM. A cross sectional comparison of predisposing, reinforcing and enabling factors for lifestyle health behaviours and weight gain in healthy and overweight pregnant women. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(3):626–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang HW, Chang RJ, Shen QM, Tsamlag L, Zhang SX, Shi Y, Ma TC, Wang ZX, She R, Lau JTF, et al. Information-motivation-behavioral skills model of consistent condom use among transgender women in Shenyang, China. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hill B, Skouteris H, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M. Interventions designed to limit gestational weight gain: a systematic review of theory and meta-analysis of intervention components. Obes Rev. 2013;14(6):435–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gardner B, Wardle J, Poston L, Croker H. Changing diet and physical activity to reduce gestational weight gain: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2011;12(7):E602–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher JD, Fisher WA, Misovich SJ, Kimble DL, Malloy TE. Changing AIDS risk behavior: effects of an intervention emphasizing AIDS risk reduction information, motivation, and behavioral skills in a college student population. Health Psychol. 1996;15(2):114–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Shrestha R, Altice FL, Huedo-Medina TB, Karki P, Copenhaver M. Willingness to Use Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): An Empirical Test of the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) Model among High-Risk Drug Users in Treatment. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Green SM, Turner D, Baldwin JA, Walsh-Buhi ER, Vamos CA, Dagne G, Marhefka SL. Towards an information motivation and behavioral skills model for new sex partners: results of a study of condom use as an HIV prevention method for emerging adults who met partners on dating and sex-seeking platforms or offline. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(5):1115–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferrari M, Speight J, Beath A, Browne JL, Mosely K. The information-motivation-behavioral skills model explains physical activity levels for adults with type 2 diabetes across all weight classes. Psychol Health Med. 2021;26(3):381–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Itani L, Radwan H, Hashim M, Hasan H, Obaid RS, Ghazal HA, Al Hilali M, Rayess R, Mohamed HJJ, Hamadeh R, et al. Dietary patterns and their associations with gestational weight gain in the United Arab Emirates: results from the MISC cohort. Nutr J. 2020;19(1):36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Power ML, Lott ML, Mackeen AD, DiBari J, Schulkin J. A retrospective study of gestational weight gain in relation to the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations by maternal body mass index in rural Pennsylvania from 2006 to 2015. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kumar R. Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shulman R, Kottke M. Impact of maternal knowledge of recommended weight gain in pregnancy on gestational weight gain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(6):754.e751-754.e757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Grenier LN, Atkinson SA, Mottola MF, Wahoush O, Thabane L, Xie F, Vickers-Manzin J, Moore C, Hutton EK, Murray-Davis B. Be Healthy in pregnancy: exploring factors that impact pregnant women’s nutrition and exercise behaviours. Matern Child Nutr. 2021;17(1):e13068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ledoux T, Daundasekara S, Van Den Berg P, Leung P, Walker L, Berens PD. Association between health beliefs and gestational weight gain. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018;27(3):341–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yan J, Zhu ZT, Kong X, Wang TT. Development, reliability and validity test of pregnancy weight management strategy scale. Int Med Health Guidance News. 2017;23(16):2632–5.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Pieper TM, Ringle CM. The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Plan. 2012;45(5–6):320–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kline R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press; 2016. p. 978–1.

  33. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In: New challenges to international marketing. 2009. p. 277–277.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Mark Sci. 2011;40(3):414–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Urbach N, Ahlemann F. Structural Equation Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares. J Inform Technol Theory Appl. 2010;11(2):5–39.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2014;43(1):115–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Loh AZH, Oen KQX, Koo IJY, Ng YW, Yap JCH. Weight management during pregnancy: a qualitative thematic analysis on knowledge, perceptions and experiences of overweight and obese women in Singapore. Glob Health Action. 2018;11(1):1499199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Faucher MA, Mirabito AM. Pregnant women with obesity have unique perceptions about gestational weight gain, exercise, and support for behavior change. J Midwifery Wom Heal. 2020;65(4):529–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bookari K, Yeatman H, Williamson M. Australian pregnant women’s awareness of gestational weight gain and dietary guidelines: opportunity for action. J Pregnancy. 2016;2016:8162645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zahiruddin WM, Arifin WN, Mohd-Nazri S, Sukeri S, Zawaha I, Bakar RA, Hamat RA, Malina O, Jamaludin T, Pathman A, et al. Development and validation of a new knowledge, attitude, belief and practice questionnaire on leptospirosis in Malaysia. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. de Jersey SJ, Mallan KM, Callaway LK, Daniels LA, Nicholson JM. Prospective relationships between health cognitions and excess gestational weight gain in a cohort of healthy and overweight pregnant women. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(8):1198–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Saarikko J, Niela-Vilen H, Rahmani AM, Axelin A. Identifying target behaviors for weight management interventions for women who are overweight during pregnancy and the postpartum period: a qualitative study informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2021;21(1):200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hill B, Skouteris H, McCabe M, Milgrom J, Kent B, Herring SJ, Hartley-Clark L, Gale J. A conceptual model of psychosocial risk and protective factors for excessive gestational weight gain. Midwifery. 2013;29(2):110–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Furness PJ, McSeveny K, Arden MA, Garland C, Dearden AM, Soltani H. Maternal obesity support services: a qualitative study of the perspectives of women and midwives. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2011;11:69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vanstone M, Kandasamy S, Giacomini M, DeJean D, McDonald SD. Pregnant women’s perceptions of gestational weight gain: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Matern Child Nutr. 2017;13(4):e12374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mcphie S, Skouteris H, Hill B, Hayden M. Understanding gestational weight gain: the role of weight-related expectations and knowledge. Aust Nz J Obstet Gyn. 2015;55(1):21–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bian C, Xu SM, Wang H, Li NN, Wu JY, Zhao YW, et al. A study on the application of the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model on rational drug use behavior among second-level hospital outpatients in Anhui, China. Plos One. 2015;10(9):e0137928.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the respondents for their participation.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72074122), Philosophy and Social Science Research of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China (No.2020SJĂ), the Open Project of Jiangsu Health Development Research Center (No. JSHD2021052), and Cultivation Project of Decision-making Consultation, Institute of Healthy Jiangsu Development, Nanjing Medical University.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hua You and Yuan-Yuan Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

    Hua You, Anita Nyarkoa Walker, Jin-Jin Ge, Shi-Qi Zhao & Xue-Qing Peng

  2. Institute of Healthy Jiangsu Development, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

    Hua You

  3. School of Nursing, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

    Hua You & Chi Zhang

  4. Jiangsu Health Development Research Center, Nanjing, China

    Yuan-Yuan Wang

  5. Chengdu Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 4 Longxiang Road, Wuhou District, Chengdu, 610041, China

    Xue-Qing Peng

Authors
  1. Hua You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuan-Yuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anita Nyarkoa Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jin-Jin Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shi-Qi Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xue-Qing Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have contributed to the conception and design of this study. HY and YYW designed the study and critically reviewed, commented and revised important intellectual content. XQP performed the statistical analyses and interpretation of data, and drafted the article. CZ performed the statistical analyses. WAN revised the draft’s grammatical sentences. SQZ and JJG collected literature materials and the data. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xue-Qing Peng.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of Nanjing Medical University (No. (2020)63), and all the methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. And oral consent was obtained from the participants before conducting the interview according to the Ethics Review Committee of Nanjing Medical University (No. (2020)63).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

You, H., Wang, YY., Zhang, C. et al. Empirical validation of the information-motivation-behavioral skills model of gestational weight management behavior: a framework for intervention. BMC Public Health 23, 130 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15067-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15067-2

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us