OBJECTIVE: Recent attention has focused on moving women from having initial mammograms to maintaining adherence to regular mammography schedules. We examined behavioral intentions to maintain mammography adherence, which include the likelihood of performing a behavior, and implementation intentions, specific action plans to obtain mammograms. Potential predictors were Theory of Planned Behavior constructs, previous barriers, previous mammography maintenance, and age. METHODS: Respondents were 2062 currently adherent women due for their next mammograms in 3-4 months according to American Cancer Society recommendations for annual screening. Statistical models were used to examine predictors of behavioral and two implementation intentions, including having thought about where women would get their next mammograms and having thought about making appointments. RESULTS: With the exception of pros, cons, and subjective norms, all variables predicted behavioral intentions (p <or= 0.05). Stronger perceived control, previous mammography maintenance, and one barrier (vs. none) predicted being more likely to have thought about where to get their next mammograms. Previous maintenance and no barriers (vs. two) predicted being more likely to have thought about making appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that among women currently adherent to mammography, volitional factors, such as barriers, may be better predictors of implementation intentions than motivational factors, such as attitudes. Implementation variables may be useful in understanding how women move from intentions to action. Future research should examine how such factors relate to mammography maintenance behaviors and can be integrated into behavior change interventions.
OBJECTIVE: Recent attention has focused on moving women from having initial mammograms to maintaining adherence to regular mammography schedules. We examined behavioral intentions to maintain mammography adherence, which include the likelihood of performing a behavior, and implementation intentions, specific action plans to obtain mammograms. Potential predictors were Theory of Planned Behavior constructs, previous barriers, previous mammography maintenance, and age. METHODS: Respondents were 2062 currently adherent women due for their next mammograms in 3-4 months according to American Cancer Society recommendations for annual screening. Statistical models were used to examine predictors of behavioral and two implementation intentions, including having thought about where women would get their next mammograms and having thought about making appointments. RESULTS: With the exception of pros, cons, and subjective norms, all variables predicted behavioral intentions (p <or= 0.05). Stronger perceived control, previous mammography maintenance, and one barrier (vs. none) predicted being more likely to have thought about where to get their next mammograms. Previous maintenance and no barriers (vs. two) predicted being more likely to have thought about making appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that among women currently adherent to mammography, volitional factors, such as barriers, may be better predictors of implementation intentions than motivational factors, such as attitudes. Implementation variables may be useful in understanding how women move from intentions to action. Future research should examine how such factors relate to mammography maintenance behaviors and can be integrated into behavior change interventions.
Authors: Robert A Smith; Debbie Saslow; Kimberly Andrews Sawyer; Wylie Burke; Mary E Costanza; W Phil Evans; Roger S Foster; Edward Hendrick; Harmon J Eyre; Steven Sener Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Carl D'Orsi; Shin-Ping Tu; Connie Nakano; Patricia A Carney; Linn A Abraham; Stephen H Taplin; R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter; Eric Berns; William E Barlow; Joann G Elmore Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-03-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nancy Breen; Kathleen A Cronin; Helen I Meissner; Stephen H Taplin; Florence K Tangka; Jasmin A Tiro; Timothy S McNeel Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: W Rakowski; M R Andersen; A M Stoddard; N Urban; B K Rimer; D S Lane; S A Fox; M E Costanza Journal: Health Psychol Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Jennifer M Gierisch; Jo Anne Earp; Noel T Brewer; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nancy Pandhi; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; Shalini Kanekar; Daniel G Petereit; Chitra Karki; Maureen A Smith Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-12-05 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Sarah Knerr; Karen J Wernli; Kathleen Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; Amanda L Graham; David Farrell; Chalanda Evans; George Luta; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: A E Anderson; K G Flores; W Boonyasiriwat; A Gammon; W Kohlmann; W C Birmingham; M D Schwartz; J Samadder; K Boucher; A Y Kinney Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Bonnie C Yankaskas; Pamela Dickens; J Michael Bowling; Molly P Jarman; Karen Luken; Kathryn Salisbury; Jacqueline Halladay; Carol E Lorenz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308