A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake.
Cervical cancer
Health behaviour
India
Low-middle-income countries
Psycho-social factors
Screening behaviour
Women
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 06 2022
16 06 2022
Historique:
received:
11
11
2021
accepted:
25
05
2022
entrez:
16
6
2022
pubmed:
17
6
2022
medline:
22
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35710374
doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01801-2
pii: 10.1186/s12905-022-01801-2
pmc: PMC9204900
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
235Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020 Aug 01;21(8):2209-2215
pubmed: 32856846
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005 Sep-Oct;15(5):918-25
pubmed: 16174246
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 18;14(11):e0224692
pubmed: 31738796
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 Jan;10(1):20-4
pubmed: 23878559
Health Promot Perspect. 2012 Dec 28;2(2):136-44
pubmed: 24688927
Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2016 Oct-Dec;37(4):278-285
pubmed: 28144096
BMC Med. 2021 Mar 3;19(1):62
pubmed: 33653331
BMC Womens Health. 2020 Oct 7;20(1):225
pubmed: 33028336
Psychol Health. 2011 Sep;26(9):1113-27
pubmed: 21929476
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 09;18(2):
pubmed: 33435372
Health Promot Int. 2017 Feb 1;32(1):7-8
pubmed: 28180270
Cancer Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;49:161-174
pubmed: 28704717
Public Health Nurs. 2021 Nov;38(6):1039-1079
pubmed: 34231254
BMC Public Health. 2015 Nov 23;15:1163
pubmed: 26596507
Nebr Symp Motiv. 1980;27:195-259
pubmed: 7242748
Int J Cancer. 2017 Nov 15;141(10):1997-2001
pubmed: 28734013
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Dec;107(3):572-7
pubmed: 17963826
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11(3):633-40
pubmed: 21039029
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2022 Mar;37(2):824-838
pubmed: 34716616
J Int Oral Health. 2014 Nov-Dec;6(6):61-6
pubmed: 25628486
Lancet. 1999 Mar 13;353(9156):869-73
pubmed: 10093978
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48834
pubmed: 23155413
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. ;18(5):1389-1394
pubmed: 28612592
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Dec 22;13(1):ijerph13010053
pubmed: 26703641
BMC Womens Health. 2019 Aug 8;19(1):107
pubmed: 31395060
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2020 Sep-Oct;31(5):497-516
pubmed: 32675646
Public Health Nurs. 2013 Sep-Oct;30(5):420-8
pubmed: 24000914
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018 Feb 26;19(2):319-324
pubmed: 29479954
BMC Med. 2021 Jul 15;19(1):165
pubmed: 34261466
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008 Sep-Oct;37(5):572-81
pubmed: 18811776
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Jul;138 Suppl 1:47-56
pubmed: 28691334
Nurs Res. 1999 Jul-Aug;48(4):198-205
pubmed: 10414682
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Dec 1;5(12):1749-1768
pubmed: 31560378
Nurs Res. 1997 Jan-Feb;46(1):32-9
pubmed: 9024422
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 27;23(1):e14088
pubmed: 33502332
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 5;15(11):e0238472
pubmed: 33151928
Image J Nurs Sch. 1992 Winter;24(4):281-7
pubmed: 1452182
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(16):7171-8
pubmed: 26514508
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e191-e203
pubmed: 31812369
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 7;15(2):e0228058
pubmed: 32032376
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 May;186(5):938-43
pubmed: 12015518
Psychol Health. 2008;23(7):745-65
pubmed: 25160879
Prev Med Rep. 2020 Oct 06;20:101223
pubmed: 33088680
J R Soc Promot Health. 2008 Nov;128(6):327-34
pubmed: 19058475
BMJ. 2005 Nov 19;331(7526):1157-8
pubmed: 16293815
Health Commun. 2015;30(6):566-76
pubmed: 25010519
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Jul;28(5):526-8
pubmed: 18850430
Psychooncology. 2016 Feb;25(2):122-30
pubmed: 26086119
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020 Apr 01;21(4):1081-1087
pubmed: 32334474