Educational Program Based on the Health Action Process Approach and Its Effect on Integrated Pest Management Adoption in Greenhouse Farmers

رضا پورنارانی ¹ ( street- pasdaran )
Mohammad Ali Morowatisharif ² ( Department of Aging and Health, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran )
Farzan Madadizadeh ³ ( Center for healthcare Data modeling, Departments of biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of public health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran )

Submited date : 2023-01-10 Accepted date : 2023-09-06

Keywords: Integrated pest management, farmers, education, Health Action Process Approach,

Abstract :

This study aimed to investigate the effect of an educational program based on the health action process approach (HAPA) on integrated pest management (IPM) adoption among greenhouse farmers in Jiroft, southern Iran. This quasi-experimental study was conducted on 300 greenhouse farmers in Jiroft, in 2021. Multistage sampling and random allocation were performed to select two groups of participants, control (n=150) and intervention (n=150). No intervention was performed on the control group. In the intervention we used a researcher-made questionnaire based on the HAPA constructs and IPM scores were registered. In the intervention group, the mean scores of all the constructs, except for recovery self-efficacy, increased after intervention. In addition, the IPM adoption in the medium IPM group increased [from 28 (18.66%) farmers to 119 (79.03%) farmers] significantly but no significant difference and/or increase was observed in the all of these variables in the control group after intervention. The HAPA-based educational program contributes positively to IPM adoption among greenhouse farmers

Full-Text:



Title page

Educational Program Based on the Health Action Process Approach and Its Effect on Integrated Pest Management Adoption in Greenhouse Farmers

Running title: Pest Management Adoption 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effect of an educational program based on the health action process approach (HAPA) on integrated pest management (IPM) adoption among greenhouse farmers in Jiroft, southern Iran. This quasi-experimental study was conducted on 300 greenhouse farmers in Jiroft, in 2021. Multistage sampling and random allocation were performed to select two groups of participants, control (n=150) and intervention (n=150). No intervention was performed on the control group. In the intervention we used a researcher-made questionnaire based on the HAPA constructs was used and IPM scores were registered. In the intervention group, the mean scores of all the constructs increased after the intervention, except for recovery self-efficacy, increased after intervention. In addition, the IPM adoption in the medium IPM group increased [from 28 (18.66%) farmers to 119 (79.03%) farmers] significantly but no significant difference and/or increase was observed in the all of thesethe variables in the control group after intervention. The HAPA-based educational program contributes positively to IPM adoption among greenhouse farmers

Keyword: Education, Health Action Process Approach, Farmers, Integrated Pest Management

 

Introduction

Agriculture sector is the main source of food supply in most countries (Khan et al. 2022). Due to growing population across the world, efforts to increase crop production rates have led to overuse of pesticides in agricultural systems and the presence of pesticide residues in water and food can endanger public health (Sharma et al. 2019). Public health policies are often ineffective in overcoming such problems. Studies on pesticides have highlighted the importance of reducing their risks and improving public health policies in this field (Zyoud et al. 2010). Various studies have shown that most pesticides are extremely resistant and cannot be easily degraded in nature due to the formation of complex chemical compounds. Therefore, in addition to affecting various pests, they may lead to environmental pollution and chronic human poisoning in the long term (Ashournezhad et al. 2012). Studies in this field have also revealed that adherence to organic diets can quickly mitigate the adverse health effects of the pesticides and decrease the levels of these metabolites in the body (Curl et al. 2015). Moreover, research evidence shows that unsafe use of pesticides is more likely to occur in developing countries (Zyoud et al. 2010). Pesticides are excessively used in Iranian agriculture as well (Dehghani, Limoee, and Zarghi 2012).

Sampling cucumber crops from farms and greenhouses and testing their extracts by gas chromatography in a study in Damavand, Tehran indicated that residual toxins p-metrosine, deltamethrin, dichlorvos, tetradifon, and carbaryl were present at amounts higher than the permissible limits ( AghaAl Maki). The analysis of toxin content in melon samples in Torbat-e Jam and Shirvan, eastern Iran showed that the diazinon residue levels were 4.98 and 4.11 times more than the standard limits, respectively. The amounts of diazinon in cucumbers collected in Dezful, southwestern Iran was were 6.1 times, Rafsanjan 4.4 times, Jiroft 4.2 times, Kerman 1.2 times, and Shirvan 1.8 times higher than the permissible limit. However, the diazinon levels in tomatoes and cucumbers planted in Mashhad were reported to be less than the permissible limit (Rezvani Moghadam et al. 2009).

The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program is one of the important approaches to reduce the use of pesticides and ultimately mitigate farming risks (Pretty and Bharucha 2015). IPM includes preventive behaviors, such as regular crop monitoring, use of trap plants, pruning of infected plants and mechanical weed control, appropriate greenhouse ventilation, use of biopesticides and biological control agents for pests. IPM is a complex concept and therefore must be trained to farmers to increase their knowledge. Various studies have shown that despite the knowledge and welcoming attitude of farmers regarding the adverse effects of pesticides, pesticides are not used appropriately (Van den Berg and Jiggins 2007; Yuantari et al. 2015; Faryabi et al. 2017; Recena et al. 2006; Oesterlund et al. 2014; Taghdisi et al. 2019). Bond et al. reported numerous limitations to the application of IPM in India, leading to increased overuse of pesticides. These limitations included the complexity of the factors affecting decision making, the lack of trained staff, and farmers' viewpoints about pesticides (Bond et al. 2009).

It seems that the application of theories is necessary to explain the factors related to farmers' behaviors (Rezaei, Mianaji, and Ganjloo 2018). The health action process approach (HAPA) is one of the effective theories that can help identify the factors effective on behavior and behavior change (Schwarzer 1999). Schwartz proposed the HAPA based on Bandura's social cognitive theory (Bandura 2001). This approach helps understand health behaviors (Schwarzer 2008).

The main hypothesis of the HAPA is that in order to adopt a behavior, an individual must go through two phases, namely, motivational and volitional. In the motivational phase, three constructs risk perception, outcome expectancies, and task self-efficacy affect behavioral intention. Subsequently, the individual becomes ready to accept a certain behavior and make related decisions. After the formation of behavioral intention, the individual enters the volitional phase, consisting of the constructs action planning, coping planning, maintenance self-efficacy, and recovery self-efficacy (Zhang et al. 2019) (Figure 1) 1.

 

Figure 1. Health Action Process Approach (Aliabad et al. 2014)

The HAPA is applied to predict, evaluate, and design various educational interventions for various health behaviors (Steca et al. 2017; Gholami et al. 2013).

Given the lack of adequate evidence on this subject in Iran and worldwide, the present study was aimed to investigate the effect of an HAPA-based educational program on IPM adoption among greenhouse farmers in a southern city of Iran in Kerman province.

Material and Methods 

Study design and participants

This quasi-experimental, interventional study was carried out with the participation of greenhouse farmers in Jiroft, southern Iran. Multistage sampling was performed in consultation with the promoters of pest management at the provincial Agricultural Jihad Organization to select participants after approval of the study protocol. For this purpose, first, health centers (n: 10) were listed. Then, two health centers were randomly selected from 10 health centers located in the central and Ismailiye district of Jiroft, where greenhouse farming is more common. Afterwards, the villages covered by each center were listed, two of which were randomly selected. The selected villages were randomly assigned to either intervention group or control group. According to the list of farmers available at the health center, a total of 150 individuals were drawn and included in the study.

The Ssample size was calculated at 120 based on the results of a pilot study and taking into account the error rate of 20% of the standard deviation. Taking into account a dropout rate of 20%, the final sample size for each group was decided to be 150. The initial sample was calculated using the following formula.

 

 

Inclusion criteria consisted of providing voluntary, informed consent to participate in the study, male gender, owning a greenhouse, having an area of 10,000-20,000 m2 under cultivation, living in the village under study, implementing traditional methods of greenhouse cultivation, age of 20-75 years, having owned the greenhouse for at least 3 years, and literacy.

Instruments and data collection process

The study objectives were explained to the participants and then they were asked to appoint a date for completing the questionnaires. The participants referred on the specified dates and after the presenting necessary instructions were presented to them, the questionnaires were completed by them through interviews.

Data collection tools included:

A.       Demographic information checklist, including age, gender, marital status, and education level.

B) The scale for HAPA constructs measurement includes the following sections:

-The task self-efficacy scale consists of 9 items to examine respondent's perceptions of his/her ability to adopt IPM. The scale's items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (Absolutely Incorrect) to 3 (Absolutely Correct). The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 and 27, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of task self-efficacy. For instance, an item of this scale is I'm sure I can use insect monitor cards.

- The outcome expectancies scale consists of 8 items to investigate respondent's perceptions of benefits and barriers to IPM adoption. The scale's items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (Absolutely Incorrect) to 3 (Absolutely Correct). The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 and 24, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of outcome expectancies. For example, an item of this scale is If I take measures related to the health of greenhouse products, consumers will be less likely to be poisoned.

- The Risk perception  scale consists of 5 items to investigate respondent's Risk risk perception  . The scale's items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (Absolutely Incorrect) to 3 (Absolutely Correct). The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 and 15, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of outcome expectancies. For example, an item of this scale is If I do not do pest management, I myself will be exposed to poisoning from consuming the products.

-The behavioral intention scale consists of 9 items to investigate the intention to use alternative pest control methods and adopt IPM. The scale's items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (Absolutely Incorrect) to 3 (Absolutely Correct). The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 and 27, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of behavioral intention. For example, an item of the scale is I intend to use yellow pest traps to eliminate insects and flies.

- The action planning scale consists of 4 items to investigate whether participants have a clear and precise plan for IPM. The scale's items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (Absolutely Incorrect) to 3 (Absolutely Correct). The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 and 12, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of action planning. For example, an item of this scale is I currently have a detailed plan for the time of taking measures related to the health of greenhouse products.

- The coping planning scale consists of 4 items to investigate whether participants have a clear and precise plan to cope with barriers to IPM adoption. The scale's items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (Absolutely Incorrect) to 3 (Absolutely Correct). The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 and 12, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of coping planning. For example, an item of this scale is In case of any interference with measures related to the health of greenhouse products, I have a detailed plan for what I need to do.

- Maintenance self-efficacy scale consists of 3 items to examine respondents' perceptions of their ability to continue IPM application in difficult situations. The scale's items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (Absolutely Incorrect) to 3 (Absolutely Correct). The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 and 9, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of maintenance self-efficacy. For example, an item of this scale is I'm sure I can regularly continue to take measures related to the health of greenhouse products, even if it takes me a long time.

-The recovery self-efficacy scale consists of 3 items to examine participants' perceptions of their ability to restart IPM application after a while. The scale's items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (Absolutely Incorrect) to 3 (Absolutely Correct). The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 are 9, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of recovery self-efficacy. For example, an item of the scale is Even if for some reason I leave taking measures related to the health of greenhouse products, I am sure I will be able to resume them.

-The IPM scale related to the health of greenhouse products consists of 9 items with items rated on different Likert scales. To answer this scale, participants were asked about the implementation status of measures related to IPM. The minimum and maximum attainable scores on this scale are 0 and 45, respectively, and higher scores indicate higher levels of IPM adoption. For example, an item of this scale is How much did you use insect monitor cards to eliminate pests during the harvest period on average per week? and the choices for the item were Never (0), Once a week (1), Twice a week (2), Three times a week (3), Four times a week (4), Five or more times a week (5) )". The IPM score of 0-15 indicates Low IPM, 15-30 medium IPM, and 30-45 High IPM.

 

The face validity of the scales of HAPA was confirmed by reviewing the opinions of 10 farmers. The content validity of the scales was confirmed using the opinions of 8 (5 health education and 3 agriculture) experts by calculating the content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI). In this study, the CVR and CVI of all items were drawn as acceptable.

After investigation of the face and content validity, the internal consistency and stability of the scales were calculated by Cronbach's alpha coefficient and test-retest with an interval of 2 weeks in a pilot study with participation of 30 individuals. The results were as follows: Risk perception (α=0.74, ICC=0.74), outcome expectancies (α=0.76, ICC=0.93), task self-efficacy (α=0.90, ICC=0.69), behavioral intention (α=0.95, ICC=0.85), action planning (α=0.93, ICC=0.64), coping planning (α=0.97, ICC=0.67), maintenance self-efficacy (α=0.64, ICC=0.73), and recovery self-efficacy (α=0.98, ICC=0.95).

 

 

Educational intervention

Educational interventions were designed based on educational needs and goals, the results of pre-test analysis and the importance of HAPA scorers and their predictors, which included the following steps.

Step 1: Emphasis on the HAPA motivational phase

Farmers in the intervention group were divided into 5 groups of 25-30 individuals. A 45-60-min group training session was held for each farmer in the village mosque. In this session, the known factors affecting the HAPA motivational phase, such as risk perception, outcome expectancies, and task self-efficacy were discussed. The main focus was on the task self-efficacy and the measures taken to implement the program were explained to the farmers throughout the session. An educational booklet and a pamphlet containing the relationship between pest management and crop health were distributed among farmers, and encouraging messages and successful experiences of participants were highlighted to increase self-efficacy. The participants were then asked to decide whether they would like to continue with product health-related measures or not. They were also asked to raise their questions to clarify potential ambiguities.

Step 2: Emphasis on the HAPA volitional phase

At this step, the private and face-to-face meetings were held. Four training sessions were held with each farmer in the HAPA volitional phase.

In the first session, each farmer was asked if he/she had a plan for IPM. If the farmer had a plan, they were asked to write an action plan, including time, place, procedure, and frequency in a table. The importance of planning to achieve the goal was reminded to the farmers who did not have a plan, and possible barriers and ways to overcome them were discussed with them.

In the second session, while the interviewer examined the action plan, the farmer was asked if he/she had a plan to deal with possible barriers. If they had a plan, they were asked to present possible actions and solutions to remove barriers in a table. The actions and solutions were discussed with them as well.

In session 3, during listening to the farmer's problems related to the implementation of the previous steps, a practical solution was provided for the problems. The farmers were encouraged to adhere to the action plan, to formulate specific and realistic goals, and not to be disappointed with problems faced through the program. They were asked to write down how they feel after doing these activities to induce necessary self-efficacy in them.

In session 4, the farmers who were unsuccessful in implementing the plan were encouraged to increase recovery self-efficacy, so that they would not have to worry about missing days and return to their previous plan. In order to increase social support among this group of farmers, their friends and colleagues made efforts to cooperate with and encourage them to implement the programs.

Step 3: Emphasis on the behavior maintenance

At this step, two sessions were held. In the first session, strategies required to increase social support were discussed with farmers. These strategies included encouraging and supporting the farmer and accompanying the farmer in certain tasks.

Finally, a meeting was held with experts at the Organization of Agriculture Jihad. They were asked to monitor the measures taken in the greenhouses visited and provide incentives for the greenhouse owners who take useful measures.

Frequency, percentage, and mean±standard deviation was used to describe the data. The normality of quantitative data distribution was investigated by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Chi-square and independent t-test were used to investigate similarity. Paired t-test was used to compare the scores before and after the intervention in each group and independent t-test was used to compare the scores after the intervention between the two groups. One-way analysis of variance was used to investigate the relationship between quantitative variables and qualitative variables of more than two-levels. P<0.05 was considered the significance level.

Results

Out of 300 participants in this study, 150 (50%) individuals were assigned to the intervention group and 150 (50%) ones to the control group. Demographic characteristics of the two groups are shown in Table 1. The groups were matched in terms of age, education level, and marital status (p>0.05).

Table 2 reveals the comparison of the mean values of the HAPA constructs before and after the intervention. There was no statistically significant difference in the scores on the HAPA constructs between the two groups before the intervention (p>0.05). However, after the educational intervention, the mean scores of HAPA constructs in the intervention group significantly changed as follow: the risk perception increased from 1.61±12.64 to 0.34±14.96, outcome expectations from 3.50±19.49 to 1.53±23.66, task self-efficacy from 18.31±3.40 to 26.16±2.45, behavioral intention from 19.47±3.57 to 3.94±24.29, action planning from 4.64±2.32 to 1.2±8.50, coping planning from 1.13±2.03 to 1.28±9.73, maintenance self-efficacy from 1.12±1.70 to 1.40±5.06, and IPM from 3.94±12.16 to 19.61±4.42 (p<001). However, the educational intervention did not increase the recovery self-efficacy score in the intervention group, so that the mean score of the construct in this group decreased from 1.27±2.12 to 0.75±1.95 (p=0.859). In the control group, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean scores of the HAPA constructs before and after the educational intervention (p>0.05) (Table 2).

Before the educational intervention, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean score of IPM adoption and frequency of pesticides use (p=0.42). However, after the educational intervention the mean score of IPM adoption in the intervention group increased significantly from 12.16±3.94 to 19.61±4.42 (p<0.001). However, in the control group, there was no significant difference in the mean score of IPM adoption before and after the intervention (p>0.05) (Table 3).

 

Table 1. Comparison of demographic information in intervention and control groups

P-value (chi-square test)	Intervention group		Control group		Variable	Variable
	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency
0.977	20.66	31	24	36	20-40	Age
	71.33	107	69.33	104	40-60
	8	12	6.66	10	60-80
0.424	15.3	23	10.5	16	Single	Marital status
	84.7	127	87.6	134	Married
0.612*	8.7	10	3.9	6	Elementary	Education level
	20.7	31	11.1	17	Junior high school
	45.3	68	50.3	77	High school diploma
	18.7	28	24.8	38	Associate degree
	8.7	13	7.2	11	Bachelor’s degree
	0	0	0.7	1	Master’s degree

*Exact test

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Comparison of HAPA Health Action Process Approach constructs scores before and after the intervention in intervention and control groups

	P-value		After intervention Mean±SD		Before intervention Mean±SD		Group		Variable
		0.10	13.62±1.86		12.31±1.81		Control		Risk perception
		P<0.001	14.96±.34		12.64±1.61		Intervention
			P<0.001		0.11		P-value
		0.11	17.58±2.21		18.87±3.33		Control		Outcome expectancies
		P<0.001	23.66±1.53		19.49±3.50		Intervention
			P<0.001		0.12		P-value
		0. 14	17.88±1.44		17.34±3.40		Control		Task Sself-efficacy
		P<0.001	26.16±2.45		18.31±3.40		Intervention
			P<0.001		0. 10		P-value
		0. 15	17.57±1.56		18.39±4.07		Control		Behavioral intention
		P<0.001	24.29±3.94		19.47±3.57		Intervention
			P<0.001		0. 14		P-value
		0. 26	4.36±.78		5.22±2.15		Control		Action planning
		P<0.001	8.50±1.2		4.64±2.32		Intervention
			P<0.001		0.033		P-value
		0. 45	4.13±1.24		2.43±2.15		Control		Coping planning
		P<0.001	9.73±1.28		2.03±1.13		Intervention
			P<0.001		0. 28		P-value
		0.32	2.02±.73		1.57±1.10		Control		Maintenance self-efficacy
		P<0.001	5.06±1.40		1.70±1.12		Intervention
			P<0.001		0.29		P-value
		0.85	1.95±.75		2.10±1.32		Control		Recovery self-efficacy
		0.66	1.90±1.28		2.12±1.27		Intervention
			0.63		0.84		P-value

 

 

 

Table 3. Comparison of integrated pest management Aadoption scores before and after the intervention in intervention and control groups

	High  IPM   Number(Percent)	Medium IPM   Number(Percent)	Low IPM   Number(Percent)	Mean±SD	Group	Time
0		8(5.34)	142(94.66)	11.88±2.15	Control	Before intervention
0		27(18)	123(82)	12.16±3.94	Intervention
				0.42	P-value
0		10(6.67)	140(93.33)	12.26±2.15	Control	After intervention
3(2.01)		119(79.33)	28(18.66)	19.61±4.42	Intervention
				P<0.001	P-value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of a HAPA-based educational program on IPM adoption in greenhouse farmers. The results showed that the HAPA-based education was effective on IPM adoption.

In the present study, there was no statistically significant difference in risk perception between the intervention and control groups before the intervention. However, three months after the intervention, the difference was drawn to be statistically significant. A study conducted on HAPA-based educational intervention to increase influenza vaccination in high-risk people in Thailand showed an increase in the risk perception of vaccination (Payaprom et al. 2011). In our educational intervention, farmers' risk perception of using less pesticides increased by informing the farmers of the outcomes of pesticides use behavior.

The intervention was effective to improve the outcome expectancies regarding the application of IPM, so that the outcome expectancies increased significantly in the intervention group after the intervention. In a study conducted on the impact of HAPA-based educational intervention on improving parenting skills in Mashhad, Iran, the educational intervention increased outcome expectancies (Gholian_aval, Esmaily, and Vahedian-Shahroodi 2019). The outcomes of behaviors that ensure the health of the individual and consumers become moreincrease  in importance important to for farmers by increasing risk perception.

In our the present study, there was no statistically significant difference in task Sself-efficacy construct between the intervention and control groups before the intervention, but the difference was statistically significant after the intervention. In a study conducted in a hospital in Yazd, Iran, to investigate maintenance of physical activity and exercise capacity after rehabilitation in coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease patients, the educational intervention increased task self-efficacy of patients (Aliabad et al. 2014). Furthermore, the behavioral intention of the intervention group increased significantly after the intervention. In other studies, the educational intervention has increased behavioral intention to receive the influenza vaccine among high-risk individuals (Payaprom et al. 2011) and has improved physical activity in cardiovascular disease patients (Aliabad et al. 2014).

In the present study, there was no statistically significant difference in action planning between the intervention and control groups before the intervention. However, there was a significant difference in this group after the intervention. In some Some similar studies (Luszczynska 2004; Baghiani-Moghaddam et al. 2014) have shown that, Thethe action planning construct significantly improved by following HAPA-based interventions. One of the possible reasons for this finding is that the farmers did not have a plan to apply IPM prior to the intervention. However, after the intervention, they designed an action plan including time, place, and procedure to perform the desired behavior and also to eliminate the obstacles previously faced to do so.

The score of maintenance self-efficacy also increased significantly in the intervention group after the intervention, so that the high level of maintenance self-efficacy may have affected behavior through the planning construct (Steca et al. 2017; Chow and Mullan 2010). Action planning and coping planning are considered as predictors of behavior and related to the concept of self-regulation. Farmers face certain obstacles in applying IPM, so coping planning can be helpful to overcome them.

In the current study, HAPA-based interventions had no significant effect on recovery self-efficacy. However, the recovery self-efficacy of physical activity in cardiovascular disease patients increased after the educational intervention in the study of Aliabad et al. (Aliabad et al. 2014). It should be noted that the nature of measures related to the health of greenhouse crops differs from that related to physical activity. If farmers fail to use IPM or do not take IPM-related measures for a period of time, the pest population of crops will increase and the efficiency of farmers in using IPM will decline. Farmers, in addition to crop health-related concerns, have also economic considerations related to the amount of crop produced. Educational intervention alone does not seem to suffice to increase recovery self-efficacy and must be economically enriched.

There was no statistically significant difference in IPM Adoption between the intervention and control groups before the intervention. However, three months after the intervention, the difference was drawn as statistically significant. The studies of Gautam et al. and Srinivasan showed that IPM education improved farmers' attitudes towards IPM application and reduced the mean consumption of pesticides (Gautam et al. 2017; Srinivasan 2008).

From the theoretical perspective of this approach, the constructs of risk perception, outcome expectancies and task self-efficacy predict the intention, and maintenance self-efficacy and recovery self-efficacy predict the behavior. In the intervention group, by increasing the mean scores of action planning, coping planning, and maintenance self-efficacy, IPM Adoption increased. In fact, Farmers with high levels of self-efficacy and coping planning were more successful in IPM. It is due to the fact that high levels of coping self-efficacy and recovery self-efficacy through the planning construct affect the behavior (Keller et al. 2016; Chow and Mullan 2010). Coping planning is considered a predictor of behavior and is related to the concept of self-regulation (Sweet et al. 2014). Therefore, farmers face barriers in IPM Adoptionadoption; to overcome this problem, coping planning seems necessary.

Therefore, it can be argued that HAPA-based interventions encourage the farmers to plan for IPM and take more appropriate measures to manage pesticide use. This planning leads to the prevention of pests and ultimately IPM adoption.

This study suffered fromhad some limitations. One limitation was the use of a self-report data collection tool. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct studies using more objective measurement methods. The second limitation was the time limitation in conducting this study. An extensive investigation of IPM adoption requires a long period.

HAPA-based educational program has a positive effect on IPM. Therefore, it is recommended to use the program to increase IPM adoption.

 

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclosedeclare.

Acknowledgments

The officials of the Organization of Agriculture Jihad and the experts promoting the IPM, health workers, and all farmers participating in this study are gratefully appreciated for assisting in conducting this study.

References:

AghaAl Maki, M. "Evaluation of residual pesticides in agricultural products Damavand region cucumber. Jornal of Basic Sciences University Al-Zahra 2004; 17 (2): 1-5." In.: Persian.

Aliabad, H. O., M. Vafaeinasab, M. A. Morowatisharifabad, S. A. Afshani, M. G. Firoozabadi, and S. K. Forouzannia. 2014. "Maintenance of physical activity and exercise capacity after rehabilitation in coronary heart disease: a randomized controlled trial."  Global Journal of Health Science 6 (6):198-208. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v6n6p198.

Ashournezhad, Mostafa, Mahmoud Ghasemnezhad, Sirous Aghajanzadeh, Davoud Bakhshi, and Javad Fattahi Moghaddam. 2012. "A Comparison of the Nutritional Value of, and the Antioxidant Compounds Present in the Organic, Integrated, and Conventionally Produced Kiwifruits cv.‘Hayward’."  Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science 42 (4):413-22.

Baghiani-Moghaddam, M, S Norouzi, M Morowati-sharifabad, and A Norouzi. 2014. "Evaluation of the health action process approach to improve mothers' parenting skills."  Health System Research:1815-28.

Bandura, A. 2001. "Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective."  Annual Review of Psychology 52:1-26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.

Bond, JL, SK Kriesemer, JE Emborg, and ML Chadha. 2009. "Understanding farmers' pesticide use in Jharkhand India."  Extension Farming Systems Journal 5 (1):53-61.

Chow, S., and B. Mullan. 2010. "Predicting food hygiene. An investigation of social factors and past behaviour in an extended model of the Health Action Process Approach."  Appetite 54 (1):126-33. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2009.09.018.

Curl, C. L., S. A. Beresford, R. A. Fenske, A. L. Fitzpatrick, C. Lu, J. A. Nettleton, and J. D. Kaufman. 2015. "Estimating pesticide exposure from dietary intake and organic food choices: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)." Environmental Health Perspectives 123 (5):475-83. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408197.

Dehghani, Rohollah, Mojtaba Limoee, and Iran Zarghi. 2012. "The review of pesticide hazards with emphasis on insecticide resistance in arthropods of health risk importance."  Scientific Journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences 17 (1).

Faryabi, Reza, Mehdi Mokhtari, Tahereh Rahimi, Abas Javadi, and Narges Rastegari. 2017. "Investigation of status and correlations between Knowledge, Attitude and Performance of Greenhouse Farmers of Jiroft Township in relation to adverse health and environmental effects of the use of pesticides in 2015."  Iran Occupational Health 14 (5):153-63.

Gautam, Shriniwas, Pepijn Schreinemachers, Md Nasir Uddin, and Ramasamy Srinivasan. 2017. "Impact of training vegetable farmers in Bangladesh in integrated pest management (IPM)."  Crop Protection 102:161-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.08.022.

Gholami, M., D. Lange, A. Luszczynska, N. Knoll, and R. Schwarzer. 2013. "A dietary planning intervention increases fruit consumption in Iranian women."  Appetite 63:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.12.005.

Gholian_aval, Mehdi, Habibollah Esmaily, and Mohammad Vahedian-Shahroodi. 2019. "The Effect of Education-Based Health Action Process Approach on Parenting Skills of Mothers with Girl Students in Mashhad."  Tolooebehdasht 18 (2):12-22.

Keller, J., P. Gellert, N. Knoll, M. Schneider, and A. Ernsting. 2016. "Self-Efficacy and Planning as Predictors of Physical Activity in the Context of Workplace Health Promotion."  Appl Psychol Health Well Being 8 (3):301-21. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12073.

Khan, Syed Abdul Rehman, Asif Razzaq, Zhang Yu, Adeel Shah, Arshian Sharif, and Laeeq Janjua. 2022. "Disruption in food supply chain and undernourishment challenges: An empirical study in the context of Asian countries."  Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 82:101033.

Luszczynska, A. 2004. "Change in breast self-examination behavior: effects of intervention on enhancing self-efficacy."  International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 11 (2):95-103. doi: 10.1207/s15327558ijbm1102_5.

Oesterlund, A. H., J. F. Thomsen, D. K. Sekimpi, J. Maziina, A. Racheal, and E. Jørs. 2014. "Pesticide knowledge, practice and attitude and how it affects the health of small-scale farmers in Uganda: a cross-sectional study."  African Health Sciences 14 (2):420-33. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v14i2.19.

Payaprom, Y., P. Bennett, E. Alabaster, and H. Tantipong. 2011. "Using the Health Action Process Approach and implementation intentions to increase flu vaccine uptake in high risk Thai individuals: a controlled before-after trial."  Health Psychology 30 (4):492-500. doi: 10.1037/a0023580.

Pretty, J., and Z. P. Bharucha. 2015. "Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa."  Insects 6 (1):152-82. doi: 10.3390/insects6010152.

Recena, M. C., E. D. Caldas, D. X. Pires, and E. R. Pontes. 2006. "Pesticides exposure in Culturama, Brazil--knowledge, attitudes, and practices."  Environmental Research 102 (2):230-6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2006.01.007.

Rezaei, Rohollah, Sepideh Mianaji, and Ali Ganjloo. 2018. "Factors affecting farmers’ intention to engage in on-farm food safety practices in Iran: Extending the theory of planned behavior."  Journal of Rural Studies 60:152-66.

Rezvani Moghadam, Parviz, Reza Ghorbani, Alireza Koocheki, Leila Alimoradi, Golsume Azizi, and Asiye Siyamargooyi. 2009. "Evaluation of pesticide residue in agricultural products: a case study on Diazinon residue rate in Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum), Cucumber (Cucumis Sativus) and Melon (Cucumis melo)."  Environmental Sciences 6 (3).

Schwarzer, R. 1999. "Self-regulatory Processes in the Adoption and Maintenance of Health Behaviors."  Journal Health Psychology 4 (2):115-27. doi: 10.1177/135910539900400208.

Schwarzer, Ralf. 2008. "Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors."  Applied psychology 57 (1):1-29.

Sharma, Anket, Vinod Kumar, Babar Shahzad, Mohsin Tanveer, Gagan Preet Singh Sidhu, Neha Handa, Sukhmeen Kaur Kohli, Poonam Yadav, Aditi Shreeya Bali, and Ripu Daman Parihar. 2019. "Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem."  SN Applied Sciences 1 (11):1-16.

Srinivasan, R. 2008. "Integrated Pest Management for eggplant fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) in south and southeast Asia: Past, Present and Future."  Journal of Biopesticides 1 (2):105-12.

Steca, P., L. Pancani, F. Cesana, F. Fattirolli, C. Giannattasio, A. Greco, M. D'Addario, et al. 2017. "Changes in physical activity among coronary and hypertensive patients: A longitudinal study using the Health Action Process Approach."  Psychology Health 32 (3):361-80. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2016.1273353.

Sweet, S. N., M. S. Fortier, S. M. Strachan, C. M. Blanchard, and P. Boulay. 2014. "Testing a Longitudinal Integrated Self-Efficacy and Self-Determination Theory Model for Physical Activity Post-Cardiac Rehabilitation."  Health Psychology Research 2 (1):1008. doi: 10.4081/hpr.2014.1008.

Taghdisi, Mohammad Hossein, Behnam Amiri Besheli, Tahere Dehdari, and Fatemeh Khalili. 2019. "Knowledge and practices of safe use of pesticides among a group of farmers in northern Iran."  The international journal of occupational and environmental medicine 10 (2):66.

Van den Berg, Henk, and Janice Jiggins. 2007. "Investing in Farmers—The Impacts of Farmer Field Schools in Relation to Integrated Pest Management."  World Development 35 (4):663-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.004.

Yuantari, Maria GC, Cornelis AM Van Gestel, Nico M Van Straalen, Budi Widianarko, Henna R Sunoko, and Muhammad N Shobib. 2015. "Knowledge, attitude, and practice of Indonesian farmers regarding the use of personal protective equipment against pesticide exposure."  Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187 (3):1-7.

Zhang, C. Q., R. Zhang, R. Schwarzer, and M. S. Hagger. 2019. "A meta-analysis of the health action process approach."  Health Psychology 38 (7):623-37. doi: 10.1037/hea0000728.

Zyoud, S. H., A. F. Sawalha, W. M. Sweileh, R. Awang, S. I. Al-Khalil, S. W. Al-Jabi, and N. M. Bsharat. 2010. "Knowledge and practices of pesticide use among farm workers in the West Bank, Palestine: safety implications."  Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 15 (4):252-61. doi: 10.1007/s12199-010-0136-3.

 

---