Cargando…

A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake

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 inclu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dsouza, Jyoshma Preema, Broucke, Stephan Van den, Pattanshetty, Sanjay, Dhoore, William
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9204900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35710374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01801-2
_version_ 1784729017927073792
author Dsouza, Jyoshma Preema
Broucke, Stephan Van den
Pattanshetty, Sanjay
Dhoore, William
author_facet Dsouza, Jyoshma Preema
Broucke, Stephan Van den
Pattanshetty, Sanjay
Dhoore, William
author_sort Dsouza, Jyoshma Preema
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9204900
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92049002022-06-18 A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake Dsouza, Jyoshma Preema Broucke, Stephan Van den Pattanshetty, Sanjay Dhoore, William BMC Womens Health Research 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. BioMed Central 2022-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9204900/ /pubmed/35710374 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01801-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Dsouza, Jyoshma Preema
Broucke, Stephan Van den
Pattanshetty, Sanjay
Dhoore, William
A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake
title A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake
title_full A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake
title_fullStr A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake
title_short A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake
title_sort comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9204900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35710374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01801-2
work_keys_str_mv AT dsouzajyoshmapreema acomparisonofbehaviouralmodelsexplainingcervicalcancerscreeninguptake
AT brouckestephanvanden acomparisonofbehaviouralmodelsexplainingcervicalcancerscreeninguptake
AT pattanshettysanjay acomparisonofbehaviouralmodelsexplainingcervicalcancerscreeninguptake
AT dhoorewilliam acomparisonofbehaviouralmodelsexplainingcervicalcancerscreeninguptake
AT dsouzajyoshmapreema comparisonofbehaviouralmodelsexplainingcervicalcancerscreeninguptake
AT brouckestephanvanden comparisonofbehaviouralmodelsexplainingcervicalcancerscreeninguptake
AT pattanshettysanjay comparisonofbehaviouralmodelsexplainingcervicalcancerscreeninguptake
AT dhoorewilliam comparisonofbehaviouralmodelsexplainingcervicalcancerscreeninguptake