PURPOSE: This study examines whether ambivalence toward mammography screening, as moderated by total amount of thought given to the reasons for and against getting mammograms at recommended intervals, predicts greater delay in obtaining subsequent screening mammograms. METHODS: A sample of 3,430 insured women with recent (within the last 8-9 months) screening mammograms completed telephone interviews as part of a 5-year intervention study to achieve sustained adherence to annual-interval mammography. Delay was assessed by the number of days between mammograms. RESULTS: Controlling for demographic factors and perceived screening barriers, days between mammograms increased as ambivalence and thought increased. Thought moderated ambivalence: Among women who were most ambivalent, women obtained mammograms 1 month earlier for each unit increase in thought. CONCLUSION: Future studies should test innovative ways to resolve ambivalence and increase thought about consequences of getting mammograms as a strategy to promote mammography screening adherence.
PURPOSE: This study examines whether ambivalence toward mammography screening, as moderated by total amount of thought given to the reasons for and against getting mammograms at recommended intervals, predicts greater delay in obtaining subsequent screening mammograms. METHODS: A sample of 3,430 insured women with recent (within the last 8-9 months) screening mammograms completed telephone interviews as part of a 5-year intervention study to achieve sustained adherence to annual-interval mammography. Delay was assessed by the number of days between mammograms. RESULTS: Controlling for demographic factors and perceived screening barriers, days between mammograms increased as ambivalence and thought increased. Thought moderated ambivalence: Among women who were most ambivalent, women obtained mammograms 1 month earlier for each unit increase in thought. CONCLUSION: Future studies should test innovative ways to resolve ambivalence and increase thought about consequences of getting mammograms as a strategy to promote mammography screening adherence.
Authors: William Rakowski; Nancy Breen; Helen Meissner; Barbara K Rimer; Sally W Vernon; Melissa A Clark; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Prev Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Kathleen M Russell; Victoria L Champion; Patrick O Monahan; Sandra Millon-Underwood; Qianqian Zhao; Nicole Spacey; Nathan L Rush; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Karen Blanchard; James A Colbert; Dhruv Puri; Joel Weissman; Beverly Moy; Daniel B Kopans; Emily M Kaine; Richard H Moore; Elkan F Halpern; Kevin S Hughes; Kenneth K Tanabe; Barbara L Smith; James S Michaelson Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer M Gierisch; Suzanne C O'Neill; Barbara K Rimer; Jessica T DeFrank; J Michael Bowling; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2009-05-29 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Jessica T DeFrank; Barbara K Rimer; Jennifer M Gierisch; J Michael Bowling; David Farrell; Celette S Skinner Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-04-11 Impact factor: 5.043
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