INTRODUCTION: Appreciating the accuracy and value of cancer screening is essential to informed decision making about screening. This study's objectives were to (1) examine people's beliefs about the accuracy and value of cancer screening, and (2) determine whether sociodemographics, cancer beliefs, and shared decision making are associated with these beliefs. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August-November 2014) were used. Respondents were non-institutionalized adults (aged ≥18 years, n=3,677). Weighted generalized linear modeling was used to examine bivariate and multivariate associations between key covariates and beliefs about cancer screening (assessed by four-item scale and independently). Secondary analyses examined whether these beliefs were associated with self-reported cancer screening. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017. RESULTS: Only 5.6% (n=189) of respondents answered all four cancer screening items correctly. Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education and higher cancer fatalism were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. However, those who reported shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening were more likely to know that "when a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer" and "when a test finds something abnormal, it is [not] very likely to be cancer" (adjusted risk ratio=1.13, p<0.01, adjusted risk ratio=1.25, p<0.01). Beliefs were not associated with likelihood of past mammography or Pap testing. CONCLUSIONS: Educators, researchers, and clinicians should consider opportunities (e.g., through shared decision making) to improve the accuracy of individuals' beliefs about cancer screening. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Appreciating the accuracy and value of cancer screening is essential to informed decision making about screening. This study's objectives were to (1) examine people's beliefs about the accuracy and value of cancer screening, and (2) determine whether sociodemographics, cancer beliefs, and shared decision making are associated with these beliefs. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August-November 2014) were used. Respondents were non-institutionalized adults (aged ≥18 years, n=3,677). Weighted generalized linear modeling was used to examine bivariate and multivariate associations between key covariates and beliefs about cancer screening (assessed by four-item scale and independently). Secondary analyses examined whether these beliefs were associated with self-reported cancer screening. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017. RESULTS: Only 5.6% (n=189) of respondents answered all four cancer screening items correctly. Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education and higher cancer fatalism were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. However, those who reported shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening were more likely to know that "when a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer" and "when a test finds something abnormal, it is [not] very likely to be cancer" (adjusted risk ratio=1.13, p<0.01, adjusted risk ratio=1.25, p<0.01). Beliefs were not associated with likelihood of past mammography or Pap testing. CONCLUSIONS: Educators, researchers, and clinicians should consider opportunities (e.g., through shared decision making) to improve the accuracy of individuals' beliefs about cancer screening. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Samir Gupta; Daniel A Sussman; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Lukejohn Day; Amar R Deshpande; B Joseph Elmunzer; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Jeanette Mendez; Ma Somsouk; James Allison; Taft Bhuket; Zhuo Geng; Beverly B Green; Steven H Itzkowitz; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Paul C Schroy; Karen Emmons; Ellen Peters; Julie T Glick; Patricia A Robinson; Maria A Lydotes; Shamini Mylvanaman; Stephen Evans; Christine Chaisson; Michael Pignone; Marianne Prout; Peter Davidson; Timothy C Heeren Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Ann Scheck McAlearney; Katherine W Reeves; Stephanie L Dickinson; Kimberly M Kelly; Cathy Tatum; Mira L Katz; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Earle Waugh; Douglas Myhre; Cassandre Beauvais; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Ashley F Railey; Denise A Dillard; Amber Fyfe-Johnson; Michael Todd; Krista Schaefer; Robert Rosenman Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Samantha Batchelor; Emma R Miller; Belinda Lunnay; Sara Macdonald; Paul R Ward Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marvin E Langston; Lindsay Fuzzell; Marquita W Lewis-Thames; Saira Khan; Justin X Moore Journal: LGBT Health Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 4.151