INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 425
www.rsisinternational.org
A Comparative Analysis of the Levels of Self-Efficacy between Males
and Females with Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)
*Hope Herbert Nkhoma
1
, Associate Professor Mavuto Tembo
2
1
Lecturer and Head of Psychology at Malawi Assemblies of God University, Lilongwe, Malawi.
2
Mzuzu University, Mzuzu, Malawi, Faculty of Environmental Science, Agri-Science Department
*Corresponding Author
DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000037
Received: 29 September 2025; Accepted: 06 October 2025; Published: 03 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) pose a serious threat to global health. Self-efficacy plays a significant role
in managing NCDs. This study aimed to compare the levels of self-efficacy between men and women with NCDs
in Lilongwe, Malawi. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 60 participants in Lilongwe. The General
Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) was used to ascertain self-efficacy. Results showed striking differences in self-
efficacy levels between males and females, with women scoring higher. Regression analysis revealed that
gender, age, and educational level predicted self-efficacy. These findings highlight the importance of addressing
gender disparities in self-efficacy to improve NCD management.
Key Words: Self-efficacy, Gender differences, Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Disease Management
INTRODUCTION
Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) have become a major global health concern, accounting almost three-
quarters of deaths worldwide (WHO, 2018). Effective management of NCDs requires a comprehensive
approach, incorporating psychological, behavioural, and medical interventions. Self-efficacy refers to the self-
belief in one’s ability to manage health (Bandura, 1997) and it plays a critical role in Non-Communicable Disease
management. People with high self-efficacy are more likely to adhere to treatment plans, engage in healthy
behaviours (e.g., regular exercise, balanced diet); manage stress and emotions effectively and monitor and
manage symptoms.
Problem Statement
Despite the growing body of research on self-efficacy, there remains a significant gap in understanding how
gender difference influence self-efficacy levels among individuals with NCDs. Existing studies often generalize
findings across populations without accounting for the nuanced psychological and sociocultural factors that may
affect males and females differently. This lack of gender-specific insight limits the development of tailored
interventions that could enhance disease management outcomes.
Objectives
Research demonstrates significant gender differences in self-efficacy (Pajares, 1996). These differences stem
from various factors. Despite the significance of self-efficacy in NCD management, limited research has
investigated gender differences in this context. The current research aims to address this knowledge gap by:
Investigating gender difference in self-efficacy among people with NCDs
Examining the relationship between self-efficacy and NCD management outcomes
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 426
www.rsisinternational.org
Identifying potential predictors of self-efficacy differences
This research’s findings contribute to the development of targeted interventions, enhancing self-efficacy and
improving Non-Communicable Disease management outcomes among different genders.
Research Questions
Do significant gender differences exist in self-efficacy among people with NCDs?
What is the relationship between self-efficacy and Non-Communicable Disease management outcomes?
What factors predict self-efficacy differences among people with NCDs?
This research’s findings contribute to the development of targeted interventions, enhancing self-efficacy and
improving non-communicable disease management outcomes among different genders.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Self-efficacy (an individual’s belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations), plays a pivotal role in health
behaviors, including the management of chronic conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, eczema,
and cancer. The difference in self-efficacy between genders are documented across various domains, including
academic performance and career aspirations, but these differences are not extended into health-related
behaviours and outcomes.
Currently, the understanding of the body-mind-behavior relation considerably changes medical system and
practice. This change, from biomedical to bio-psycho-social medicine, indicates present holistic model of health
provision. Grossly, bio-psycho-social model reflects the optimism that biological, psychological, and social
characteristics interact in a free-spirited way to maintain health or illness (Newman et al., 2019). This perspective
is universal, and endorsed and validated by the World Health Organization (Fuchs et al., 2020).
Because behaviour plays an essential role in physical health, behavioural health is becoming the bedrock of bio-
psycho-social practice. Dobson (2021), expressed the way behaviour positively or negatively alters the body by
affirming that life-events, lifestyles, and bad behaviour are squarely related to health and illness; the way one
thinks about events influences the response in developing healthy or unhealthy behaviours and changes in
behaviour. Attitudes to health and a person’s personality predispose the body to certain dysfunctions (Wells,
2014).
Psychology as the field of mental processes and behaviour underscores training and knowledge regarding such
facets as development over lifespan, learning, experiences, cognition, emotions, social behaviour, motivations,
attitudes and personality. Additionally, it endeavours to understand how biological, behavioural, and social
elements influence health and illness. Therefore, psychology as behavioural health discipline plays a vital role
in understanding how biological, behavioural, and social characteristics impact health and illness. The discipline
equips individuals with expertise and knowledge to understand how fundamental behavioural and cognitive
processes (i.e., emotion, cognition, development, and personality, and motivation, social and cultural interaction)
prepare the body to develop dysfunctions. It trains to perceive how behavioural and cognitive functions are
modified, the characteristics that contribute alteration, and how dysfunctions are diagnosed and treated.
Furthermore, it endows skills to use in several psychological, psycho-diagnostics and psycho-therapeutic
procedures which help and affect the abilities to function in diverse settings and roles. Additionally, it helps to
modify behaviour and lifestyle so as to prevent and recover from health problems.
As a result, demand for psychological skills in medical settings is significantly increasing and psychology is one
of the most important disciplines in health care systems (Parsons et al., 2016). The discipline is making
remarkable footsteps in developing applications relevant to health. In spite of that, refinements are still needed
to integrate psychology into the health foundation and substructure. The provocation for health is to acknowledge
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 427
www.rsisinternational.org
psychology’s exceptional contributions to stratagem and implementation, especially to debarring of disease and
injury.
The topic of self-efficacy and gender difference is a significant area of research in education, health, community
development, and psychology particularly concerning how these differences impact various outcomes, including
academic performance and health behaviours. This review synthesizes the existing literature on self-efficacy,
focusing on gender difference and implications. Self-efficacy, (capability to execute behaviours necessary to
produce specific performance attainments) plays a crucial role in health behaviour change and management of
NCDs. Studies indicate that self-efficacy significantly differ between genders, influencing how males and
females manage health, adhere to treatment regimens, and respond to health challenges. Self-efficacy refers to
ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task (Bandura, 1977). This belief influences motivation,
behaviour, and emotional responses, making it a critical factor in various domains, including education and
health. Key component of self-efficacy is mastery experience.
Mastery experiences play a crucial role in shaping self-efficacy, as they provide opportunities for success and
failure. According to Bandura (1997), “mastery experiences are the most influential source of efficacy
information and provide direct evidence of capability.” Successful experiences enhance self-efficacy, and
demonstrate the skills and abilities necessary to accomplish tasks (Schunk, 1995). On the other hand, failures
undermine self-efficacy, leading to decreased confidence and motivation (Ames, 1992). Be that as it may, it’s
essential to note that failures serve as valuable learning experiences, providing opportunities to learn from
mistakes and develop self-efficacy (Dweck, 2000).
METHODOLOGY
This study employed a cross-sectional design, surveying patients (n = 60). Measures included:
Demographic questionnaire
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)
NCD management outcomes (e.g., blood pressure control, medication adherence)
This cross-sectional study (Crowther & Lancaster, 2012) recruited 60 patients with Non-Communicable
Diseases from Kamuzu Central hospital in Lilongwe City in Malawi. Lilongwe is the Capital City and hubs both
the south and the northern regions. With urbanization, chances are that the participants originate from all the
three regions of Malawi thereby giving a rich picture of the study. Inclusion criteria: aged 18-75, professional
experience on diagonizing NCD (diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease). Exclusion criteria: severe
cognitive impairment and inability to provide informed consent.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics and independent t-tests compared self-efficacy records between males and females.
Regression analysis examined predictors of self-efficacy. Descriptive statistics provided an overview of the
demographic characteristics and self-efficacy scores of the participants. Independent t-tests compared self-
efficacy scores between men and women.
RESULTS
Demographics
| Variable | females (n=30) | Males (n=30) | p-value || --- | --- | --- | --- || Age (mean ± SD) | 55.4 ± 10.2 | 53.2 ±
9.5 | 0.23 || Education (%) | | | || Primary | 20 | 25 | 0.43 || Secondary | 40 | 35 | || Tertiary | 40 | 40 | |
Age
Women: 55.4 ± 10.2 years
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 428
www.rsisinternational.org
Men: 53.2 ± 9.5 years
p-value: 0.23
The age difference between the genders is not statistically significant (p-value = 0.23). This suggests that the
age distribution is similar between the two groups.
Education
Primary education
Women: 20%
Men: 25%
p-value: 0.43
Secondary education
Women: 40%
Men: 35%
p-value: Not reported (likely due to multiple comparison corrections)
Tertiary education
Women: 40%
Men: 40%
p-value: Not reported
The education levels between the genders are not significantly different for any of the categories (primary,
secondary, and tertiary). The p-values show that the observed differences are likely due to chance.
Implications
Age: Since there’s no outstanding age difference, any differences in self-efficacy records are less likely to be
attributed to age.
Education: The similar education levels suggest that education is not a confounding variable in this study.
Self-Efficacy Records
| | Females (n=30) | Males (n=30) | p-value || --- | --- | --- | --- || GSES (mean ± SD) | 32.1 ± 4.5 | 29.4 ± 4.8 |
<0.001 |
GSES (General Self-Efficacy Scale) Scores
Females: 32.1 ± 4.5
Males: 29.4 ± 4.8
p-value: <0.001
Key Findings
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 429
www.rsisinternational.org
Significant Gender Difference: The p-value (<0.001) shows a statistically significant difference in self-efficacy
records between the genders.
Higher Self-Efficacy in women: females recorded higher on the GSES (32.1) compared to males (29.4).
Moderate Effect Size: The difference in self-efficacy records corresponds to a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d
≈ 0.6).
Implications of the findings
Gender Disparity: The remarkable difference in self-efficacy scores suggests a gender disparity, with women
exhibiting higher self-efficacy.
Potential Consequences: Lower self-efficacy in males may impact ability to manage Non-Communicable
Diseases (NCDs) effectively.
Targeted Interventions: These discoveries highlight the need for tailored interventions to enhance self-efficacy
among genders.
Explanations of the Implications
Sociocultural Factors: Gender roles, social norms, and expectations influence self-efficacy perceptions.
Psychological Factors: Differences in depression anxiety, or coping mechanisms contribute to self-efficacy
disparities.
Environmental Factors: Social support and health care vary between genders.
Regression Analysis
| Predictor | β | p-value || --- | --- | --- || Gender (female) | 0.23 | <0.01 || Age | -0.19 | <0.05 |
| Education (tertiary) | 0.21 | <0.01 |
Regression Equation
Self-efficacy = β0 + β1(Gender) + β2(Age) + β3(Education)
Results
| Predictor | β (Beta Coefficient) | p-value || --- | --- | --- || Gender (female) | 0.23 | <0.01 |
| Age | -0.19 | <0.05 || Education (tertiary) | 0.21 | <0.01 |
Interpretation
Gender (female): β = 0.23, p < 0.01
For every unit change in gender (from female to male), self-efficacy increases by 0.23 units.
Women have significantly higher self-efficacy scores than men.
Age: β = -0.19, p < 0.05
For every year increase in age, self-efficacy decreases by 0.19 units.
Older people tend to have lower self-efficacy scores.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 430
www.rsisinternational.org
Education (tertiary): β = 0.21, p < 0.01
Having a tertiary education is associated with a 0.21-unit increase in self-efficacy.
Individuals with higher education levels tend to have higher self-efficacy scores.
Key Findings
Gender is a remarkable predictor of self-efficacy, with women exhibiting higher scores.
Age has a negative relationship with self-efficacy, indicating older individuals require additional support.
Tertiary education is positively linked with self-efficacy, highlighting the importance of education in enhancing
self-efficacy.
Independent T-Tests
Independent t-tests compared self-efficacy scores between men and women.
| Variable | t-value | p-value || --- | --- | --- || Self-Efficacy | 3.21 | <0.001 |
Results shows significant difference in self-efficacy scores between women (M = 32.1, SD = 4.5) and men (M
= 29.4, SD = 4.0, with females exhibiting higher self-efficacy.
Model Summary
| Model | R | R² | F | p-value || --- | --- | --- | --- | --- || 1 | 0.43 | 0.19 | 10.21 | <0.001 |
Co-efficient
| Predictor | β | p-value || --- | --- | --- || Gender (female) | 0.23 | <0.01 || Age | -0.19 | <0.05 |
| Education (tertiary) | 0.21 | <0.01 |
DISCUSSION
The current research findings align with previous study indicating significant gender differences in self-efficacy
levels, with women consistently scoring higher (Mueller & Conway Dato-on 2013; Wood & Charbonneau,
2018). This disparity stems from various factors: sociocultural influences. It is important to note that traditional
gender roles and expectations contribute to differences in self-efficacy perceptions. The important fact is that of
socialization. In most areas, women receive more encouragement and reinforcement for self-efficacy
development. It is not the same with men hence the portrayed results. Psychological factors are also significant
in many facets of life including disease management. Differences in depression, anxiety, and coping mechanisms
influence self-efficacy.
The observed gender differences in self-efficacy has important implications. Targeted interventions are key to
this concept. There is a pressing need and is urgent to design programs that addresses the unique needs of each
gender to in order to enhance self-efficacy. Education and training play a pivotal role in boosting self-efficacy.
For this reason, stakeholders need to wake up and collaborate with all relevant partners more especially with the
education sector to emphasize self-efficacy development in educational settings and curricular. Ultimately, the
health sector is key to the realization of all efforts aimed at boosting self-efficacy among all genders. Health care
policy need to inform the same. A well thoughtful consideration of the impact of gender on self-efficacy when
developing health care policies is critical.
A number theories explain the observed gender differences in this study. The first is what is known as Social
Learning Theory (SLT) (Bandura, 1977). According to this theory woman has more opportunities for
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 431
www.rsisinternational.org
observation, imitation, and reinforcement. Another important theory is Self-Efficacy Theory (SET) (Bandura,
1997). It is obvious that gender disparities in self-efficacy stem from variations in cognitive processing and
motivational factors. Eagly (1987), developed another equally important theory that informed this study. This
theory known as Gender Role Theory assumes that traditional gender roles influence self-efficacy perceptions.
Findings showed that:
Gender (female) was a significant predictor of self-efficacy (β = 0.23, p < 0.01).
Age was negatively associated with self-efficacy (β = -0.19, p < 0.05).
Tertiary education was positively linked with self-efficacy (β = 0.21, p < 0.01).
Practical Implications of the Findings
Health care professionals
The findings of this study calls upon the health care professionals to consider gender disparities in self-efficacy
when developing treatment plans. Very rarely do health professionals consider the gender of the clients when
they visit the hospitals. The lenses put on is that of all are patients. This study has unearthed a critical aspect of
the patients and that is the gender aspect itself. This aspect as shown in this study, has so many probabilities of
hindering the treatment process and adherence. For this reason, deliberate steps by professionals need to be taken
into consideration to enhance treatment and care.
Educators
Design curricular promoting self-efficacy development for both genders. Educators play a significant role in
promoting self-efficacy development, particularly in addressing gender differences. Educators shape attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviours. For this reason, the education system need to incorporate self-efficacy-enhancing
learning objectives into curricula. Self-efficacy principles have to deliberately be incorporate into lesson plans.
The focus should be on skill-building.
Policy makers
Addressing gender disparities in self-efficacy requires a multifaceted approach, involving policy makers, health
care professionals, educators, and community leaders. The policy makers’ role includes: develop and implement
policies promoting gender perspective; allocate resources for self-efficacy-enhancing initiatives and monitor and
evaluate program effectiveness. Self-efficacy need to be incorporated into national health agenda.
CONCLUSION
Addressing gender differences in self-efficacy is critical for effective Non-Communicable Disease (NCD)
management. Health care providers need to consider tailored interventions to enhance self-efficacy among
patients with NCDs. Significant gender disparities in self-efficacy exist, with men exhibiting lower levels. Self-
efficacy is a crucial predictor of health outcomes and disease management. Effective NCD management requires
addressing these differences. Programs need to be designed that address unique needs of each gender with NCDs.
This on the other hand, requires enhanced health care provider training: providers need to be educated on gender-
sensitive care. The other important fact is that of policy reforms. Policies must incorporate gender considerations
into health care delivery. Addressing gender differences in self-efficacy is essential for effective NCD
management. By implementing tailored interventions and considering gender-sensitive care, health care
providers have the capacity to enhance self-efficacy across genders with NCDs, ultimately improving health
outcomes and reducing health care costs.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 432
www.rsisinternational.org
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Adaramaja, S. R., & Ogunsola, M. T. 2014. Demographic factors as correlates of health-seeking
behaviour of the people of Oyo state, Nigeria. GJDS, 11(2), 100–15.
2. Ames, C. 1992. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and Student Motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
3. Allen, A. B., & Leary, M. R. 2010. Self‐Compassion, stress, and coping, Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 4(2), 107–118.
4. Aveling, E.-L., & Jovchelovitch, S. 2014. Partnerships as Knowledge Encounters: A
5. Psychosocial Theory of Partnerships for Health and Community Development. Journal of Health
Psychology, 19, 34-45. doi:10.1177/1359105313509733
6. Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.
7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman.
8. Baker, D. W. 2006. The Meaning and the Measure of Health Literacy. Journal of General Internal
Medicine, 21(1) 878-883.
9. Babić, R., Babić, M., Rastović, P., Ćurlin, M., Šimić, J., Mandić, K., & Pavlović, K. 2020. Resilience in
health and illness. Psychiatria Danubina, 32(suppl. 2), 226-232.
10. Blackburn, K. and Cipriani, G. P. 2002. A Model of Longevity, Fertility and Growth.
11. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26(2):187ñ204. Crowther, D. and Lancaster, G., 2012.
Research methods. Routledge.
12. Clark, N.M. and Dodge, J.A., 1999. Exploring self-efficacy as a predictor of disease management. Health
Education & Behavior, 26(1), pp.72-89.
13. Dobson, H, Malpas, C.B, Burrell, A.J, 2021. Burnout and Psychological Distress Amongst Australian
Healthcare Workers During Covid-19 Pandemic, Australasian Psychiatry 29(1): 26-30
14. Dweck, C. S. 2000. The Role of Mindsets in Facilitating Motivation and Competence. In C. R. Snyder
& E. C. Chang (Eds.), Psychology of Optimism and Hope (pp. 139-154). Springer.
15. Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: A Social-Role Interpretation. Lawrence
Erlbaum.Fuchs A, Abegglen S, Berger-Estilita J, 2020. Distress and Resilience of Healthcare
Professionals During Covid-19 Pandemic: Study Protocol for Mixed Methods Research Project, 10(7):
e039832
16. Pajares, F. 1996. Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
543-578.
17. Parsons S, Kruijt A-W, Fox E. 2016. A cognitive model of psychological resilience, J Exp Psychopathol;
7(3):296–310.
https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.053415.
18. Schunk, D. H. 1995. Self-Efficacy and Education. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and
Adjustment (pp. 281-303). Springer.
19. Mueller, S.L. and Conway Dato-on, M., 2013. A cross cultural study of gender-role orientation and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9, pp.1-20.
National Institute of Mental Health. 2020. Self-Efficacy and Health.
20. Newby DA, Hill SR, Barker BJ, Drew AK, Henry DA. 2001. Drug information for consumers: should it
be disease or medication specific? Results of a community survey. Aust New Zeal J Publ Health.
25(6):564-70.
21. Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M. and Nielsen, I., 2019. Entrepreneurial self-
efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents,
and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of vocational behavior, 110, pp.403-419.
22. Wells M. 2014. Is psychological resilience associated with physical recovery in older adults? Topics in
Geriatric Rehabilitation;30(3):176–80.
23. Wood, V.M. and Charbonneau, D., 2018. Gender, self-efficacy, and warrior identification in Canadian
Army personnel. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(7), pp.747-758.
24. World Health Organization. 2018. Non-Communicable Diseases.
