Development and Application of a Health Promotion Program for Marriage Immigrant Women

In Ju Seo; Jeong Sook Park

doi:10.7469/kjan.2015.27.2.198

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.27(2) > 1076317

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Seo and Park: Development and Application of a Health Promotion Program for Marriage Immigrant Women

Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2015;27(2):198-210.

Published online: NaN April 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2015.27.2.198

Development and Application of a Health Promotion Program for Marriage Immigrant Women

In Ju Seo¹, Jeong Sook Park²

^¹Daegu Health College, Daegu

^²College of Nursing, Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea

Corresponding author: Park, Jeong Sook College of Nursing, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeol-daero, Dalseo-gu, Daegu 704-701, Korea. Tel: +82-53-580-3907, Fax: +82-53-580-3916, E-mail: jsp544@gw.kmu.ac.kr

Received 18 February 20159 April 2015 Accepted 13 April 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This studywas to developahealthpromotionprogram for marriage immigrant womenandto evaluate its efficacy.

Methods

The healthpromotion programwas comprisedof eight 100-minuteweekly sessions. Each sessionincluded understandingof healthresponsibility, nutrition, physical activity, interpersonal relations, stress management, andself actualization. The research was conducted under the principles of nonequivalent control group pretest-post test design. The outcome variables were health promoting behavior, health status, acculturation, self efficacy, and perceived barrier. The participants were 15 immigrant women in theexperimental group and 16 in the control group. Data was analyzed using x² test, Fisher's exact test, Mann Whitney U-test and Wilcoxonsignedranktest.

Results

Therewas asignificant improvement inhealthpromotingbehaviors (U=-3.08, p=.002), left shoulder flexibility(U=-3.02, p=.003), right shoulder flexibility(U=-3.02, p=.003), low back flexibility (U=-3.37, p=.001), social healthstatus(U=-3.38 p=.001) andsubjective healthstatus (U=-2.17 p=.030) inthe experimental groupcompared to thecontrol group.

Conclusion

The health promotionprogram for marriageimmi-grant womenwas aneffectiveinterventionforimprovinghealthpromotingbehavior, physical healthstatus, social health, and subjective healthstatus. Therefore, the developed healthpromotionprogram needs tobe applied to married immigrant women in other kinds nursing care settings in future research.

Keywords: Health promotion, Health status, Immigrants, Women

REFERENCES

1.Annualreport of Korea immigration service ministry on 2013. Report No.: Policy Paper 11-1270000-000465-10.

2.Kim GS., Moon SS. Perceived health status, health behavior and marital satisfactionin married immigrantwomen. Journal of Korean Public Health Nursing. 2011. 25(2):174–86.

3.Kim SK., Kim YK., Cho AJ., Kim HR., Lee HK., Seol DH, et al. A study on the national survey of multicultural families 2009. Report No.: Policy Paper 11-1351000-000625-01.

4.Seol DH., Kim YT., Kim HM., Yoon HS., Lee HY., Yim KT, et al. Foreign wives life in Korea- focusing on the policy of welfare and health. Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare;2005. Report No.: Policy Paper 11-1460000-002610-01.

5.Seo IJ., Park JS. Health promoting behaviors, health problems and self-rated health status in female marriage immigrant in Korea. Journal of Digital Convergence. 2013. 11(4):369–82.

6.Kim ON. A study on the factors affecting marital conflicts of immigrant women. family and culture. 2006. 18(3):63–106.

7.Kim YK., Cho AJ., Choi HM., Lee JY. Welfare policies in multicultural era for multicultural families. Reston: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2008. Report No.: 2008-14.

8.Kim HR., Yeo JY., Jung JJ., Baek SH. Health status of marriage immigrant women and children from multicultural families and health policy recommendations. Reston: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2012. .(MONO1201311690).

9.Leininger MM. Transcultural nursing: an overview. Nursing Outlook. 1984. 32(2):72–3.

10.Pender NJ. Health promotion in nursing practice. 3rd ed.Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange. Century Crofts;1996.

11.Walker SN., Sechrist KR., Pender NJ. The health-promoting lifestyle profile: College of Nursing, Universityof Nebraska ⅡMedical Center, Omaha, USA. 1995.

12.Park MN., Choi SY. Development of reproductive healthpro-gram and identification of effect for married women immigrants. Journal of Korean Academy Nursing. 2014. 44(3):248–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2014.44.3.248.

13.Ann YH. Development and testing of a health education program for immigrant women married to Koreans. Journal of Korean Public Health Nursing. 2008. 22(2):200–10.

14.Park JS., Oh YJ. The effect of health promotion program on self efficacy, health problems, farmers syndrome and quality of life of the rural elderly. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Adult Nursing. 2006. 18(1):10–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5393/JAMCH.2009.34.1.047.

15.Shin SI. The validity and reliability of the Korean version of the general health questionnaire: KGHQ-20 & KGHQ-30. Korean Journal of Social Welfare. 2001. 46:210–35.

16.Jang JY. Influence that marital satisfaction and fostering stress of marriage immigrating women has on the cultural adaptation [master's thesis]. Seoul: Chung-Ang University;2009.

17.Jeong NO., Lee MH. A predictive model on health promotion behavior in women who immigrate for marriage. Journal of Korean Academy Nursing. 2010. 40(5):695–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2010.40.5.695.

18.Ha YJ. Effect of horticultural therapy program on acculturative stress and mental health in the internationally married female migrant. [doctoraldissertation]. Gwangju: Chonnam National University;2011.

19.Kim KJ., Cha YN., Lim HK., Jang HS. An effect of health promotion program in mid-life women. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 1999. 29(3):541–50.

20.Shin JS., Huh MD. Effects of hatha yoga exercise for 12 weeks on obese women oner the age physical fitness and metabolic syndrome risk factors. The Journal of Korean Dance. 2011. 29(3):305–25.

21.Lee HK., Park YS. Effects of a health promotion program on college students who are on the brink of dyslipidemia based onCox's interactionmodel. Journalof the Korea Academia Industrial Cooperation Society. 2014. 15(5):3058–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2014.15.5.3058.

22.Kwack HR., Jang EJ. The effect of evocational education program based on horticultural activities on the self-efficacy, social adjustment, and guidance preparation action for married immigrant women. Journal of Korean Society for Plants People and Environment. 2014. 17(3):181–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2014.17.3.181.

23.Yang OK., Lee GY., Joo SH., Hyun JH. National human rights commission of Korea on 2008. Seoul, National human rights. Report No. Policy Paper 978-89-6114-132-1. 9330.

24.Kweon GY., Park KW. A study on influence factors to the mental health of foreign wives. Korean Journal of Social Issues. 2007. 14(2):187–219.

25.Jeon SY. A study on effect of mentoring program with mental and social adaptation for youth runaways. Journal of Evaluation on Counseling. 2012. 5(1):31–43.

26.Yeun YR., Yang S. Effects of a marital relationship enrichment program on communication, conflict resolution, and marital satisfaction in multicultural couples. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2012. 21(3):250–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.12934/jkpmhn.2012.21.3.250.

27.Lalonde MA. 1974. New perspective on the health of Canadians. AWorkingDocument. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

28.Park YS., Yoon IJ. Characteristics of social support for north Korean migrantadolescentsandits effects on their adaptation inSouth Korea. Korean Journal of Sociology. 2007. 41(1):124–55.

29.Choi JS., Oh JY. A study on group art activity program for empowerment of the female marriage immigrants. Korean Journal of Family Social Work. 2011. 33:319–47.

30.Jo EJ. Ananalysis ofthe effectiveness of the K-WIFYmodelin participatory health promotion education for university students [doctoral dissertation]. Busan: Kosin University;2004.

Table 1.

Contents of Health Promotion Programs for Marriage Immigrant Women

Week	HPLP II	Contents	Min	HPB factor
1		Opening Ceremony	10
		Pre-measurement ․ Writing participation agreement, doing pre-survey and checking flexibility ․ Explaining of health promotion behavior checklist	50
	Personal relations	․ Mentor-mentee inaugural ceremony	40	Social support
2	Health responsibility	․ Health education - Anemia, hepatitis, digestive disease control and prevention - Instructions for medical facilities, special lecture for how to use Public Health Center and brochure distribution	50	Perceived barriers
2	Physical activities	․ Theory and practice of exercise - Walk with a correct posture	50
3	Nutrition	․ Nutrition management for oneself and family - Proper eating habits like eating meals on time - Nutrition knowledge for nurturing infants, how to make baby food - Taking multi-vitamins	40	Self efficacy
	Stress management	․ Hand massage for managing stress and fatigue	30
	Physical activity	․ Yoga activity for promoting flexibility	30
4	Self actualization	․ Horticultural therapy for self-actualization - Smelling the rosemary scent and add a meaning to a living organism, transplant - Transplanting plants and watch the plant taking roots, find the meaning of life and adapt to Korean culture	80	Acculturation
4	Physical activity	․ Yoga activity for promoting flexibility	20
5	Nutrition	․ Cooking class: combining homeland food and Korean food - Homeland food: Nasi-goreng, Bulgogi, salad	180	Acculturation
6	Personal relations	․ Communication skills for promoting personal relations - Couple communication	50
	Health responsibility	․ Health care for reproductive system and child spacing - Contraception, health screening (uterine, breast cancer examination)	30	Social Support
	Physical activity	․ Yoga activity for promoting flexibility	20
7	Self actualization	․ Role-play - 'Who am I', 'How to socialize'	70	Self efficacy
7	Health responsibility	․ Hygiene health for one-self and family - Hand-washing education - Sanitation concept when nurturing baby and cooking	30
8	Health responsibility	․ Preview of child health management - Health management for infants - Vaccination, first aid, child-related institutions and how to use agencies	30	Perceived barriers
	Stress management	․ Stress reduction by using mother tongue language freely - Speak in mother tongue language, call someone in peoples' homeland.	20
		Post-measurement - Post-survey and biological index measurement	50
		․ Closing Ceremony - Honor awards and distributing souvenirs	10
Every weeks		․ 'I can do it' announcement ․ Check list for practicing health promotion behavior		Self efficacy
Every weeks		․ Mentor-mentee activity		Social support

HPLP II=health promoting lifestyle profile II; Min.=minutes, HPB=health promoting behavior.

Table 2.

Homogeneity Test of the General Characteristics (N =31)

Characteristics	Categories	Exp. (n=15)	Cont. (n=16)	Total (n=31)	x² or U	p
Characteristics	Categories	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	x² or U	p
Nationality	Vietnam	11 (35.5)	9 (29.0)	20 (64.5)		.889^†
Nationality	Others (China, Philippines, etc.)	4 (12.9)	7 (22.6)	11 (35.5)		.889^†
Age (year)	20~29	8 (25.8)	7 (22.6)	15 (48.4)	0.29	.211
Age (year)	30~39	7 (22.6)	9 (29.0)	16 (51.6)	0.29	.211
Education	≤ Middle school	7 (22.6)	4 (12.9)	11 (35.5)		.334^†
	High school	5 (16.1)	8 (25.8)	13 (41.9)
	≥ College	3 (9.7)	4 (12.9)	7 (22.6)
Religion	Christianity	5 (16.1)	1 (3.2)	6 (19.4)		.284^†
	Buddhism	6 (19.4)	9 (29.0)	15 (48.3)
	No religion/others	4 (12.9)	6 (19.4)	10 (32.3)
Marriage duration (month)	≤ 50	8 (25.8)	6 (19.4)	14 (45.2)		.580^†
	51~100	5 (16.1)	5 (16.1)	10 (32.2)
	≥ 101	2 (6.5)	5 (16.1)	7 (22.6)
Acquirement of nationality	Yes	4 (12.9)	7 (22.6)	11 (35.5)		.169^†
Acquirement of nationality	No	11 (35.5)	9 (29.0)	20 (64.5)		.169^†
Korean proficiency	Fluent	2 (6.5)	6 (19.4)	8 (25.8)		.083^†
	Average	8 (25.8)	9 (29.0)	17 (54.8)
	Bad or worse	5 (16.1)	1 (3.2)	6 (19.4)
Occupation	Yes	0 (0.0)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)		.484^†
Occupation	No	15 (48.4)	14 (45.1)	29 (93.5)		.484^†
Income (10,000 won)	≤ 100	4 (12.9)	4 (12.8)	8 (25.8)		.525^†
	＞ 100~200	8 (25.8)	6 (19.4)	14 (45.2)
	＞ 200	3 (9.7)	6 (19.4)	9 (29.0)

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group;

^† Fisher's exact test.

Table 3.

Homogeneity Test of HPLP, Health Status, Acculturation, Self-efficacy, and Perceived Barrier (N=31)

Characteristics	Categories	Exp. (n=15)	Cont. (n=16)	U	p
Characteristics	Categories	M±SD	M±SD	U	p
HPLP	Total	118.73±17.35	126.68±15.42	28.99	.264
	Health responsibility	20.06±3.32	21.62±4.57	12.31	.421
	Physical activity	14.73±3.01	15.50±3.42	7.51	.757
	Nutrition	19.60±3.13	20.87±2.96	5.51	.855
	Interpersonal relations	21.80±2.70	24.12±2.60	14.18	.077
	Stress management	18.40±4.03	18.81±3.83	11.18	.514
	Self actualization	21.86±3.24	23.68±2.96	9.64	.380
Physical health status	Shoulder flexibility (Rt.)	4.60±3.40	2.03±4.30	17.12	.145
	Shoulder flexibility (Lt.)	0.33±7.72	0.62±4.88	17.52	.131
	Low back flexibility	5.98±6.48	2.50±6.17	21.45	.162
Psychologic health status		7.20±3.34	6.06±3.67	14.32	.281
Social health status		41.33±5.98	43.81±6.61	10.98	.811
Perceived health status		9.40±1.88	9.75±1.69	0.97	.965
Acculturation		36.00±4.29	35.87±5.31	13.78	.466
Self-efficacy		26.20±3.87	23.06±4.31	9.79	.635
Perceived barrier		19.80±3.50	18.56±4.57	17.32	.138

Cont.=control group; Exp.=experimental group; HPLP=health promoting lifestyle profile; Lt.=left, Rt.=right,

Table 4.

Comparison of HPLP between Experimental and Control Group (N=31)

Variables	Groups	Pretest	Posttest	Difference	U	p	z	p
Variables	Groups	M±SD	M±SD	Mean	U	p	z	p
Total	Exp. (n=15)	118.73±17.35	138.47±23.40	19.74	-3.08	.002	-2.92	.003
Total	Cont. (n=16)	126.68±15.42	127.25±14.25	0.56			-1.19	.236
Health responsibility	Exp. (n=15)	20.06±3.32	23.66±5.85	3.60	-3.24	.001	-2.49	.013
Health responsibility	Cont. (n=16)	21.62±4.57	21.43±4.19	0.19			-0.54	.593
Physical activity	Exp. (n=15)	14.73±3.01	18.13±3.54	3.40	-3.27	.001	-2.99	.003
Physical activity	Cont. (n=16)	15.62±3.07	16.06±3.07	0.13			-0.56	.557
Nutrition	Exp. (n=15)	19.60±3.13	22.13±3.42	2.47	-1.94	.053	-2.60	.009
Nutrition	Cont. (n=16)	20.87±2.96	21.06±2.72	0.19			-0.76	.450
Interpersonal relations	Exp. (n=15)	21.80±2.70	24.13±4.05	2.33	-1.91	.057	-2.51	.012
Interpersonal relations	Cont. (n=16)	24.12±2.60	24.25±2.67	0.13			-1.00	.317
Stress management	Exp. (n=15)	18.40±4.03	22.33±3.62	3.93	-2.91	.004	-2.82	.005
Stress management	Cont. (n=16)	18.81±3.83	18.93±3.75	1.25			1.41	.157
Self actualization	Exp. (n=15)	21.86±3.24	25.40±3.90	3.53	-2.53	.011	-2.76	.006
Self actualization	Cont. (n=16)	23.68±2.96	23.87±2.80	0.19			-1.34	.180

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

Table 5.

Comparison of the Variables between the Experimental and the Control Group (N=31)

Variables	Group	Pretest	Posttest	Difference	U	p	z	p
Variables	Group	M±SD	M±SD	Mean	U	p	z	p
Shoulder flexibility (Rt.)	Exp. (n=15)	4.60±3.40	6.93±3.93	2.33	-3.02	.003	-3.07	.002
Shoulder flexibility (Rt.)	Cont. (n=16)	2.03±4.30	1.81±4,75	-0.22			-1.09	.276
Shoulder flexibility (Lt.)	Exp. (n=15)	0.33±7.72	3.33±5.80	3.00	-3.02	.003	-2.81	.005
Shoulder flexibility (Lt.)	Cont. (n=16)	0.62±4.88	0.93±5.13	0.31			-0.82	.414
Low back flexibility	Exp. (n=15)	5.98±6.48	9.46±6.22	3.48	-3.37	.001	-2.94	.003
Low back flexibility	Cont. (n=16)	2.50±6.17	2.81±6.27	0.31			-1.19	.236
Psychologic health status	Exp. (n=15)	7.20±3.34	8.60±2.35	1.40	-0.95	.342	-1.36	.172
Psychologic health status	Cont. (n=16)	6.06±3.67	7.63±3.65	1.56			0.34	.001
Social health status	Exp. (n=15)	41.33±5.98	44.47±5.65	3.13	-3.38	.001	-2.52	.012
Social health status	Cont. (n=16)	43.81±6.61	43.31±7.57	-0.50			-1.34	.180
Perceived health status	Exp. (n=15)	9.40±1.88	9.73±1.87	0.33	-2.17	.030	-1.89	.059
Perceived health status	Cont. (n=16)	9.75±1.69	9.75±1.69	0.00			0.00	1.000
Acculturation	Exp. (n=15)	36.00±4.29	36.13±6.32	0.13	-0.62	.532	-0.11	.916
Acculturation	Cont. (n=16)	35.87±5.31	35.62±5.24	-0.25			-1.41	.157
Self-efficacy	Exp. (n=15)	26.20±3.87	25.93±3.17	-0.27	-1.30	.195	-0.60	.553
Self-efficacy	Cont. (n=16)	23.06±4.31	23.06±4.31	0.00			0.00	1.000
Perceived barrier	Exp. (n=15)	19.80±3.50	19.80±3.69	0.00	-0.78	.434	-0.17	.863
Perceived barrier	Cont. (n=16)	18.56±4.57	18.93±5.45	0.38			-0.86	.391

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group; Rt.=right; Lt.=left.

TOOLS

Similar articles