Before, ordinal regression analysis, , the data was pre- tested to find out the fitness and accurate of tools. The pre-test results demonstrated that, the tool was acceptable p -value of (.891) of which about 32 items was tested, whereas the p-value was higher than standard (>.70) (15). Subsequently, the ordinary regression analysis was done to determine the relationship between variables (Table1), of which, the findings was statistical significant as the p -value was equal to (.000), whereas the goodness of fit was below (.005) by (.001) which was statistically significant fit
Table 1a; demonstrates the model of fitting
|
Chi-Square
|
df
|
Sig.
|
Environmental
|
|
|
|
Pearson
|
107.608
|
56
|
.000
|
Deviance
|
97.402
|
56
|
.001
|
Table 1b;illustrates the Goodness-of-Fit of the tool
Model
|
-2 Log Likelihood
|
Chi-Square
|
df
|
Sig.
|
Environmental
|
|
|
|
|
Intercept Only
|
266.038
|
|
|
|
Final
|
227.680
|
38.358
|
8
|
.000
|
Participant’s characteristics
A total of 600 participants comprising 328 (54.7%) female and 272 (45.3%) males. were interviewed with regard to their understanding on the socio-demographic factors. The statistical mean age and standard deviation were 18.3 and SD = 0.64 respectively. 87% were advanced students and 12.3% were ordinary education students while 45% were sciences students, 21.3% art, and 21.5% economy and (11%) were general knowledge students (Table; 2). Generally, half of the participants – 300 (50%), were knowledgeable. Female were statistical significant higher than men.
Table 2; demonstrate the frequency distribution of demographic characteristics
Social-demographic factors
|
Item
|
f
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
16-17
|
186
|
31.0
|
|
18-19
|
330
|
55.0
|
|
20-21
|
84
|
14.0
|
|
|
|
|
Gender
|
Male
|
272
|
45.3
|
|
Female
|
328
|
54.7
|
|
|
|
|
Education level
|
ordinary level
|
74
|
12.3
|
|
advanced
|
526
|
87.7
|
|
|
|
|
Subject
|
Science
|
273
|
45.5
|
|
Economic
|
128
|
21.3
|
|
Arts
|
129
|
21.5
|
|
General
|
70
|
11.7
|
Student level of Knowledge on socio-demographic characteristics perspective (sex education and subject specialized)
Cross-tabulation was done to examine the association between socio-demographic variables and the knowledge of the participants on NCDs prevention on environmental-nutrition perspective approach. Specifically Age, sex, education were significantly associated with the knowledge of participants. Education was significantly associated with NCDs prevention knowledge in univariate analyses. In the multivariable analysis, age sex and education area were significantly associated with knowledge of NCDs prevention on aspect of environmental- nutrition approach. A clear dose–response association was observed with educational level (P-for linear trend from logistic regression <0.000). The female and science student’s respondents were more likely to have knowledge than other social- demographic characteristics (Table 3)
. Table3; association between knowledge and social-demographic characteristics (age, sex, education and subject specialize
Variable
|
NCDs prevention education
|
statistics
|
Age
|
S/agreed
|
Agree
|
Neutral
|
S/disagree
|
Disagree
|
|
16-17
|
186.000(10.5%)
|
217.000 (12.3%)
|
87.000 (4.9%)
|
57.000 (3.2%)
|
16.000 (.9%)
|
Chi-square=62.820
df =8
P =.000
|
18-19
|
383.000 (21.7%)
|
369.000 (20.9%)
|
95.000 (5.4%)
|
84.000 (4.8%)
|
34.000 (1.9%)
|
20-21
|
63.000 (3.6%)
|
91.000 (5.1%)
|
36.000 (2.0%)
|
19.000 (1.1%)
|
30.000 (1.7%)
|
sex
|
Male
|
273.000 (15.4%)
|
275.000 (15.6%)
|
124.000(7.0%)
|
89.000 (5.0%)
|
33.000 (1.9%)
|
Chi-square= 26.267
df =4
P =.000
|
Female
|
359.000 (20.3%)
|
402.000 (22.8%)
|
94.000 (5.3%)
|
71.000 (4.0%)
|
47.000 (2.7%)
|
Level of .education
|
Ordinal
|
89.000 (5.0%)
|
85.000 (4.8%)
|
30.000 (1.7%)
|
23.000 (1.3%)
|
11.000 (.6%)
|
Chi-square= 823
df =4
P =..935
|
Advanced
|
543.000 (30.7%)
|
592.000 (33.5%)
|
188.000(10.6%
|
137.000 (7.8%)
|
69.000(3.9%)
|
By Subject specialization
|
sciences
|
257.000 (14.5%)
|
295.000 (16.7%)
|
136.000 (7.7%)
|
42.000 (2.4%)
|
39.000 (2.2%)
|
Chi-square= 74.548
df =12
P =..000
|
economic
|
140.000 (7.9%)
|
167.000 (9.5% )
|
19.000 (1.1%)
|
40.000 (2.3%)
|
22.000 (1.2%)
|
Arts
|
148.000 (8.4%)
|
127.000 (7.2%)
|
37.000(2.1%)
|
55.000(3.1%)
|
9.000 (.5%)
|
General knowledge
|
87.000 (4.9%)
|
88.000 (5.0%)
|
26.000 (1.5%
|
23.000 (1.3%)
|
10.000 (.6%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge on Nutrition perspective approach towards NCDs-COVID 19 prevention
The study had two perspectives approaches; nutrition and environmental. Table 3 illustrated the nutrition findings, in whole; Participants have average knowledgeable. The factors accepted between 81% > (55%). However clearly known factors included; proper Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point practices (HACCP)( 81%), food law practices 67.3%. In house food budget 67.4% and Physical Activity 65.5%, reduction of processed food 61.4% nutrition analysis 55.0% as well as balance diet 58.0% with statistically median 4and IQR 2 which emprise were adequately knowledgeable. The factors that are not well clear included Fruits and Vegetable intake (36.7%), GMO 39.9%, high price for processed food 43.4%, practicing moveable patch (44%) and riding bicycle 45.6%. Statistically median and IQR was 3and 2 respectively (table 4&5).
Table 4; shows the responses of the participants on their nutrition knowledge on NCDs prevention
Variable f (%) %(600)
Balance diet consumption prevent NCD’s Disagreed 163 27.2
Neutral 89 14.8
Agreed 348 58.0
Fruits and Vitamin (FV) campaign reduce NCDs outbreak.
Disagreed 247 41.5
Neutral 131 21.8
Agreed 232 36.7
Good food policy, support the movement of NCD’s prevention.
Disagreed 133 22.1
Neutral 118 19.7
Agreed 349 68.1
A good food law practice is one way of NCDs prevention
Disagreed 107 17.9
Neutral 89 14.8
Agreed 404 67.3
Reduction of processed food helps to prevent NCDs.
Disagreed 85 12.5
Neutral 157 26.2
Agreed 378 61.4
Raise the price of processed foods reduce NCD’s.
Disagreed 246 41.0
Neutral 100 16.7
Agreed 254 43.4
Raise the price of GMO foods help to decrease NCD’s.
Disagreed 217 36.1
Neutral 144 24.0
Agreed 239 39.9
Proper food budget reduces NCD’s outbreak.
Disagreed 116 19.4
Neutral 80 13.3
Agreed 404 67.4
Nutrition analyses help to prevent NCD’s.
Disagreed 174 29.0
Neutral 96 16.0
Agreed 330 55.0
HACCP
Disagreed 17 2.9
Neutral 95 15.8
Agreed 488 81.3
Active Physical activity prevents NCD’s.
Disagreed 126 21.0
Neutral 81 13.5
Agreed 393 65.5
Riding a bicycle is one way of fighting a NCD’s
Disagreed 227 37.9
Neutral 99 16.5
Agreed 274 45.6
Table 5; illustrate the statistical approval on nutrition perspective approach (n = 600) percentage total 100 % responses
|
B/ diet
|
FV comp
|
food policy
|
|
food law P
|
Moveable garden
|
Processed foods
|
GMO food
|
food budget
|
Nutrition analysis
|
HACCP
|
Physical activity
|
Riding bicycle
|
|
Valid
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
Missing
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Median
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
|
Std. D
|
1.285
|
1.302
|
1.222
|
1.179
|
|
1.274
|
1.362
|
1.272
|
1.197
|
1.296
|
.802
|
1.237
|
1.357
|
|
Range
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
|
Percentiles
|
25
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
3.00
|
2.00
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
2.00
|
|
50
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
|
75
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
5.00
|
5.00
|
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
5.00
|
4.00
|
5.00
|
5.00
|
4 .00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student’s Knowledge on Environmental Perspective Approach towards NCDs-COVID 19 Prevention
Generally, the respondents were statistically significant clear by many factors assessed were almost had median of 4 and IQR of 4 (Table 6). The factors evaluated included environmental education, 73.5%, environmental protection (70.7%), environmental management (50.1%), sustainable agriculture practices (57.3%), fruit tree plantation (51.6%), reforestation (54.7%) and close monitoring of imported equipment (60.8%) (Table; 7) Except preparing of movable garden as help to initiate to prevent NCDs-COVID 19 had median of 3 and IQR 2 of which means was not accepted
Table 6;Demonstrate the frequency distribution of student knowledge on Environmental perspective on NCD’s-COVID19 Prevention
Item
|
F(n=600)
|
%( 100)
|
Environment Education speed up NCDs- prevention.
|
|
|
Disagreed
|
86
|
14.3
|
Neutral
|
73
|
12.2
|
Agreed
|
441
|
73.5
|
Environment protections interrelated to NCDs prevention.
|
|
|
Disagreed
|
92
|
15.3
|
Neutral
|
84
|
14.0
|
Agreed
|
424
|
70.7
|
The environment management prevents NCD’s
|
|
|
Disagreed
|
204
|
34.0
|
Neutral
|
95
|
15.8
|
Agreed
|
301
|
50.1
|
Sustainable agriculture practices prevent NCD’s
|
|
|
Disagreed
|
138
|
23
|
Neutral
|
118
|
19.7
|
Agreed
|
344
|
57.3
|
Moveable garden initiate NCDs prevention
|
|
|
Disagreed
|
192
|
32
|
Neutral
|
144
|
24.0
|
Agreed
|
264
|
44
|
Fruits trees plantation complain around stress, home and school
|
|
|
Disagreed
|
170
|
28.3
|
Neutral
|
120
|
20.0
|
Agreed
|
310
|
51.6
|
Reforestation is a source of NCDs reduction.
|
|
|
Disagreed
|
155
|
25.8
|
Neutral
|
120
|
20.0
|
Agreed
|
325
|
54.1
|
Close monitor of imported equipment’s reduce NCD’s
|
|
|
Disagreed
|
147
|
25.5
|
Neutral
|
88
|
14.7
|
Agreed
|
365
|
60.8
|
Table 7; Statistical level of environmental knowledge among Tanzanian secondary students on NCDs-COVID 19 prevention
|
|
Environment protections.
|
Environment Education.
|
Environment management.
|
Imported equipment’s
|
Reforestation
|
Sustainable agriculture
|
Moveable garden initiate
|
Fruits trees plantation
|
N
|
Valid
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
600
|
Missing
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Mean
|
3.84
|
3.88
|
3.22
|
3.52
|
3.42
|
3.48
|
3.19
|
3.36
|
Median
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
4.00
|
Mode
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Std. Deviation
|
1.130
|
1.125
|
1.353
|
1.272
|
1.216
|
1.222
|
1.274
|
1.283
|
Variance
|
1.277
|
1.265
|
1.830
|
1.619
|
1.479
|
1.492
|
1.622
|
1.646
|
Range
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Percentiles
|
25
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
2.00
|
3.00
|
2.00
|
3.00
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
50
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
4.00
|
75
|
5.00
|
5.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|