María E Fernández1, Lara S Savas2, Katherine M Wilson3, Theresa L Byrd4, John Atkinson2, Isabel Torres-Vigil5, Sally W Vernon2. 1. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA Maria.E.Fernandez@uth.tmc.edu. 2. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Texas Tech Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX, USA. 5. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA Dorothy I. Height Center for Health Equity & Evaluation Research, University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) prevalence and psychosocial correlates of CRCS among Latinos in South Texas. METHOD: Using multivariable analyses, we examined the association of perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, pros and cons, subjective norms, knowledge and fatalism on CRCS among 544 Latinos (50 years and older). RESULTS: In this socioeconomically disadvantaged population, 40% had never heard of any CRCS test, only 34% reported ever completing any type of CRCS, and only 25% were adherent to CRCS guidelines. Insurance status, gender, perceived cons, CRCS self-efficacy, and CRCS norms were significantly associated with CRCS. CONCLUSION: CRCS interventions in this population should focus on improving access, increasing self-efficacy and perceived norms, and decreasing negative perceptions of CRCS.
OBJECTIVE: To assess colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) prevalence and psychosocial correlates of CRCS among Latinos in South Texas. METHOD: Using multivariable analyses, we examined the association of perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, pros and cons, subjective norms, knowledge and fatalism on CRCS among 544 Latinos (50 years and older). RESULTS: In this socioeconomically disadvantaged population, 40% had never heard of any CRCS test, only 34% reported ever completing any type of CRCS, and only 25% were adherent to CRCS guidelines. Insurance status, gender, perceived cons, CRCS self-efficacy, and CRCS norms were significantly associated with CRCS. CONCLUSION: CRCS interventions in this population should focus on improving access, increasing self-efficacy and perceived norms, and decreasing negative perceptions of CRCS.
Authors: R A Smith; A C von Eschenbach; R Wender; B Levin; T Byers; D Rothenberger; D Brooks; W Creasman; C Cohen; C Runowicz; D Saslow; V Cokkinides; H Eyre Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: K Allen Greiner; Aimee S James; Wendi Born; Sandra Hall; Kimberly K Engelman; Kolawole S Okuyemi; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: Prev Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Juan Jose Gonzalez; Ahsan Wahab; Joann Samalik; Elizabeth Ramirez; Tryphene Saint-Phard; Emelie Gonzalez; Orimisan S Adekolujo Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2019-10-29
Authors: Angelina R Wittich; L Aubree Shay; Belinda Flores; Elisabeth M De La Rosa; Taylor Mackay; Melissa A Valerio Journal: AIMS Public Health Date: 2019-04-01
Authors: Marcia Cruz-Correa; Frances Cordero; Jean Pierre Betancourt; Yaritza Diaz-Algorri; Sofia M Lopez; Mirza Rivera; Rafael Mosquera; Victor Carlo-Chevere; Segundo Rodriguez-Quilichini Journal: J Fam Med Dis Prev Date: 2016-08-25