Literature DB >> 31550991

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis.

Lisa Carter-Harris1, James E Slaven2, Patrick O Monahan2, Claire Burke Draucker3, Emilee Vode3, Susan M Rawl3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual's perspective.
METHODS: Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables.
RESULTS: Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lung cancer screening; conceptual model; health behaviour; health beliefs; path analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31550991      PMCID: PMC7089840          DOI: 10.1177/0969141319876961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  25 in total

1.  Importance of fatalism in understanding mammography screening in rural elderly women.

Authors:  R M Mayo; J R Ureda; V G Parker
Journal:  J Women Aging       Date:  2001

2.  A breast cancer fear scale: psychometric development.

Authors:  Victoria L Champion; Celette Sugg Skinner; Usha Menon; Susan Rawl; R Brian Giesler; Patrick Monahan; Joanne Daggy
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2004-11

3.  Measuring stigma in people with lung cancer: psychometric testing of the cataldo lung cancer stigma scale.

Authors:  Janine K Cataldo; Robert Slaughter; Thierry M Jahan; Voranan L Pongquan; Won Ju Hwang
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Attitudes to participation in a lung cancer screening trial: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Deesha Patel; Ajiri Akporobaro; Nyasha Chinyanganya; Allan Hackshaw; Clive Seale; Stephen G Spiro; Chris Griffiths
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 9.139

5.  Beliefs and attitudes about lung cancer screening among smokers.

Authors:  Sirisha Jonnalagadda; Cara Bergamo; Jenny J Lin; Linda Lurslurchachai; Michael Diefenbach; Cardinale Smith; Judith E Nelson; Juan P Wisnivesky
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 5.705

6.  A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Lisa Carter-Harris; Susan Brandzel; Karen J Wernli; Joshua A Roth; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 2.267

7.  Development of abbreviated measures to assess patient trust in a physician, a health insurer, and the medical profession.

Authors:  Elizabeth Dugan; Felicia Trachtenberg; Mark A Hall
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Barriers to uptake among high-risk individuals declining participation in lung cancer screening: a mixed methods analysis of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial.

Authors:  Noor Ali; Kate J Lifford; Ben Carter; Fiona McRonald; Ghasem Yadegarfar; David R Baldwin; David Weller; David M Hansell; Stephen W Duffy; John K Field; Kate Brain
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Lung cancer screening: what do long-term smokers know and believe?

Authors:  Lisa Carter-Harris; DuyKhanh Pham Ceppa; Nasser Hanna; Susan M Rawl
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Smokers' interest in a lung cancer screening programme: a national survey in England.

Authors:  Samantha L Quaife; Charlotte Vrinten; Mamta Ruparel; Samuel M Janes; Rebecca J Beeken; Jo Waller; Andy McEwen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  4 in total

1.  Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-Up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Authors:  Roger Y Kim; Katharine A Rendle; Nandita Mitra; Chelsea A Saia; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Robert T Greenlee; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Stacey A Honda; Michael J Simoff; Marilyn M Schapira; Jennifer M Croswell; Rafael Meza; Debra P Ritzwoller; Anil Vachani
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2022-09

2.  Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the lung cancer screening health belief scales.

Authors:  Yu-An Lin; Lisa Carter-Harris; Jia-Ni Yang; Xiu Jing Lin; Fei Fei Huang
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation.

Authors:  Kate L A Dunlop; Henry M Marshall; Emily Stone; Ashleigh R Sharman; Rachael H Dodd; Joel J Rhee; Sue McCullough; Nicole M Rankin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  Smoking-Related Social Interactions as Experienced by Persons Who Smoked Long-term.

Authors:  Claire Burke Draucker; Susan M Rawl; Emilee Vode; Matthew Fields; Candice Elkins; Olivia Morgan; Sara R Perez; Lucy Straber; Lisa Carter-Harris
Journal:  Clin Nurse Spec       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 1.067

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.