Cargando…

The Revised Champion’s Health Belief Model Scale: Predictive Validity Among Brazilian Women

Mammography screening is provided free of charge for the recommended target population in Brazil but participation rates have remained low, and breast cancer mortality has continued to increase. Thus, it is important to identify factors that are associated with poor participation in mammography scre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moreira, Camila Brasil, Dahinten, V. Susan, Howard, A. Fuchsia, Fernandes, Ana Fátima Carvalho
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7774489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33415294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2377960820940551
Descripción
Sumario:Mammography screening is provided free of charge for the recommended target population in Brazil but participation rates have remained low, and breast cancer mortality has continued to increase. Thus, it is important to identify factors that are associated with poor participation in mammography screening so that service providers can target health promotion messages and screening programs more effectively. Objective: To evaluate the predictive validity of the Revised Champion’s Health Belief Model scale (RCHBMS) for identifying women at high risk of not adhering to national guidelines for mammography screening in Brazil. Methods: We used a longitudinal survey design with a 1-year follow-up data from 194 women living in northeastern Brazil, in the city of Fortaleza, Ceará, participants completed the RCHBMS at baseline, and mammography uptake was measured 1 year later. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine the predictive validity of the RCHBMS for identifying women who had not adhered to recommendations for mammography screening, after accounting for the women’s sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. The sensitivity and specificity of various cut-off points were calculated to determine the optimal cut-off point for identifying women at high risk of not adhering to mammography screening guidelines. Results: Two subscales of the RCHBMS uniquely predicted nonadherence: susceptibility and barriers, along with race and family history of cancer. The total scale score (with barriers reverse coded) was also highly predictive. For our sample, using only the RCHBMS with a cutoff of ≤ 3.67 (out of a total possible range of 1–5) yielded a high sensitivity and specificity for predicting nonadherence. Conclusion: Study findings support the validity and clinical utility of the RCHBM for identifying women at risk of not adhering to national guidelines for mammography screening in Brazil.