Literature DB >> 17145075

Factors associated with return for routine annual screening in an ovarian cancer screening program.

Michael A Andrykowski1, Mei Zhang, Edward J Pavlik, Richard J Kryscio.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical, demographic, dispositional, and attitudinal variables associated with return for routine, annual transvaginal sonography (TVS) screening for ovarian cancer.
METHODS: Asymptomatic, average to high risk, women (n=585) participating in a free university-based ovarian cancer screening program completed a baseline interview prior to undergoing an initial TVS screening test. During the baseline interview, demographic (age, education, partner status, race), clinical (family history of ovarian cancer), dispositional (optimism, health values), and attitudinal (perceptions of personal risk for ovarian cancer and effectiveness of screening, intentions to return for repeat routine screening, discomfort during screening, satisfaction with the screening process, ovarian cancer-specific distress) information was obtained. Return for repeat screening was documented from screening program records.
RESULTS: Results from both multivariate proportional hazards and logistic regression analyses indicated that stated intentions to return for a repeat screening test within the next year was the strongest predictor of return for repeat screening. Possessing > or =12 years of education was also associated with a greater likelihood of repeat screening in both the proportional hazards and logistic regression analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Results provide further support for low education as a risk factor for suboptimal participation in cancer screening. Results also highlight the critical link between intentions to perform a health-protective behavior and subsequent performance of that behavior and suggest that repeat screening could be enhanced by eliciting both an intention to return for annual ovarian cancer screening as well as a specific plan for implementing this intention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17145075      PMCID: PMC1852473          DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.10.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  24 in total

1.  Risk charts: putting cancer in context.

Authors:  Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Cancer screening practices from National Health Interview Surveys: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Robert A Hiatt; Carrie Klabunde; Nancy Breen; Judith Swan; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Usefulness of mass screening for ovarian carcinoma using transvaginal ultrasonography.

Authors:  S Sato; Y Yokoyama; T Sakamoto; M Futagami; Y Saito
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  The efficacy of transvaginal sonographic screening in asymptomatic women at risk for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  J R van Nagell; P D DePriest; M B Reedy; H H Gallion; F R Ueland; E J Pavlik; R J Kryscio
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Maria C Katapodi; Kathy A Lee; Noreen C Facione; Marylin J Dodd
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Health literacy as a predictor of follow-up after an abnormal Pap smear: a prospective study.

Authors:  Stacy Tessler Lindau; Anirban Basu; Sara A Leitsch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Continuing participation supports ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  E J Pavlik; T L Johnson; P D Depriest; M A Andrykowski; R J Kryscio; J R Van Nagell
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 7.299

8.  Compliance of average- and intermediate-risk women to semiannual ovarian cancer screening.

Authors:  Charles W Drescher; Judy Nelson; Sue Peacock; M Robyn Andersen; Martin W McIntosh; Nicole Urban
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Colon cancer: risk perceptions and risk communication.

Authors:  Neil D Weinstein; Kathy Atwood; Elaine Puleo; Robert Fletcher; Graham Colditz; Karen M Emmons
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb

10.  Calculation of the risk of ovarian cancer from serial CA-125 values for preclinical detection in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Steven J Skates; Usha Menon; Nicola MacDonald; Adam N Rosenthal; David H Oram; Robert C Knapp; Ian J Jacobs
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  5 in total

1.  Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a case-control study.

Authors:  Shan-Rong Cai; Su-Zhan Zhang; Hong-Hong Zhu; Shu Zheng
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes associated with a false positive ovarian cancer screening test result.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-04-21

3.  Socio-demographic characteristics of participation in the opportunistic German cervical cancer screening programme: results from the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort.

Authors:  David Seidel; Nikolaus Becker; Sabine Rohrmann; Katharina Nimptsch; Jakob Linseisen
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 4.553

4.  Cancer screening in a middle-aged general population: factors associated with practices and attitudes.

Authors:  Stéphane Cullati; Agathe I Charvet-Bérard; Thomas V Perneger
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Changes in colorectal cancer screening intention among people aged 18-49 in the United States.

Authors:  Mary L Greaney; Elaine Puleo; Kim Sprunck-Harrild; Sapna Syngal; Elizabeth Gonzalez Suarez; Karen M Emmons
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 3.295

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.