Cancer worry frequency vs. intensity and self-reported colorectal cancer screening uptake: A population-based study

Author:

Vrinten Charlotte1,Stoffel Sandro1,Dodd Rachael H1,Waller Jo1,Lyratzopoulos Yoryos1,von Wagner Christian1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK

Abstract

Objectives Many studies of cancer worry use items measuring frequency or intensity. Little is known about how each of these relate to cancer screening uptake. This study compared the association between worry frequency vs. intensity and colorectal cancer screening intention/uptake. Methods Across four surveys (2014–2016), we collected data from 2878 screening-eligible men and women (aged 60–70) in England. Measures included single-items assessing cancer worry frequency and intensity, and a derived combination of both. We also assessed self-reported past faecal occult blood testing uptake (ever vs. never), intention to participate when next invited (yes vs. no), and demographics. Using logistic regression, we compared a model containing sociodemographic characteristics (Model 1), with four models adding cancer worry frequency (Model 2), intensity (Model 3), both (Model 4), or the combined measure (Model 5). Results A model with cancer worry intensity and demographics (Model 3) explained significantly more variance in uptake and intention ( R2 = 0.068 and 0.062, respectively) than demographics alone (Model 1: R2 = 0.058 and 0.042; p < 0.001), or a model with demographics and cancer worry frequency (Model 2: R2 = 0.059 and 0.052; p < 0.001). The model was also equally as effective as models including both the frequency and intensity items (Model 4: R2 = 0.070 n.s. and 0.062 n.s.), or using the derived combination of both (Model 5: R2 = 0.063 n.s. and 0.053 n.s.). Conclusion A single item measure of cancer worry intensity appeared to be most parsimonious for explaining variance in colorectal cancer screening intention and uptake.

Funder

Cancer Research UK

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Cited by 9 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3