Author:
Dsouza Jyoshma Preema,Broucke Stephan Van den,Pattanshetty Sanjay,Dhoore William
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Cervical cancer represents a very high burden of disease, especially in Low- and Middle-income economies. Screening is a recommended prevention method in resource-poor settings. Cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake is influenced by various psycho-social factors, most of which are included in behavioural models. Unlike demographic characteristics, these factors are modifiable. While few studies have compared these models in terms of their capacity to predict health behaviour, this study considers three health behaviour theories to assess and compare the predictors of CCS behaviour and intention.
Methods
A survey was conducted among 607 sexually active women in the South Indian state of Karnataka. Data was collected regarding socio-demographic factors, health literacy, knowledge on CCS, and the socio-cognitive factors related to CCS that are represented in the Health Belief Model (HBM), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Theory of Care-Seeking Behaviour (TCSB). Logistic regression analyses tested to what extent each of the theoretical models explained cervical cancer screening (CCS) intention and regular screening behaviour, comparing the variance explained by each of the models.
Results
CCS intention was best explained by the TPB, followed by the HBM. Of the constructs included in these models, positive attitude towards the screening procedure and perceived benefits contributed most significantly to screening intention, followed by fear, anxiety or embarrassment related to the disease or screening procedure, and context specific barriers.
Conclusion
Health behavioural models such as the TPB and HBM can help to identify the main socio-cognitive factors explaining the intention of women to participate in CCS. As such, they can inform interventions to target specific determinants of screening intention and behaviour, and enhance their effectiveness by addressing women’s screening attitude, perceived benefits, and emotions as well as reducing context specific barriers to screening.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology,Reproductive Medicine,General Medicine
Reference66 articles.
1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.
2. Obi S, Ozumba B. Cervical cancer: socioeconomic implications of management in a developing nation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;28(5):526–8.
3. De Groot J, Mah K, Fyles A, Winton S, Greenwood S, DePetrillo A, Devins G. The psychosocial impact of cervical cancer among affected women and their partners. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.00155.x.
4. Herzog TJ, Wright JD. The impact of cervical cancer on quality of life—the components and means for management. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107(3):572–7.
5. Shrestha AD, Neupane D, Vedsted P, Kallestrup P. Cervical cancer prevalence, incidence and mortality in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev APJCP. 2018;19(2):319.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献