IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v340y2024ics0277953623007542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Provider communication contributes to colorectal cancer screening intention through improving screening outcome expectancies and perceived behavioral control

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Xuan
  • Squiers, Linda
  • Helmueller, Leah
  • Madson, Gabriel
  • Southwell, Brian G.
  • Alam, Shama
  • Finney Rutten, Lila J.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the US despite the availability of multiple effective, guideline-recommended screening options. Provider recommendation has been consistently shown to improve screening completion. Yet, available literature provides little information as to how specific information providers communicate influence patient decision-making about CRC screening. We tested the pathways through which information communicated by providers about the “Why” and “How” of CRC screening using the mt-sDNA test contributes to intention to complete the test. Data came from a behavioral theory-informed survey that we developed to identify psychosocial factors associated with mt-sDNA screening. RTI International administered the survey between 03/2022-06/2022 to a sample of US adults ages 45–75 who received a valid order for mt-sDNA screening with a shipping date between 5/2021-9/2021. Participants completed an electronic or paper survey. We tested the proposed relationships using structural equation modeling and tested indirect effects using Monte Carlo method. A total of 2,973 participants completed the survey (response rate: 21.7%) and 81.6% (n = 2,427) reported have had a conversation with their health care provider about mt-sDNA screening before the test was ordered. We found that “Why” information from providers was positively associated with perceived effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening, while “How” information was positively associated with perceived ease of use. “Why” information contributed to screening intention through perceived effectiveness while “How” information contributed to screening intention through perceived ease of use. These findings emphasize the critical role of provider communication in shaping patient decision-making regarding CRC screening. CRC screening interventions could consider implementing provider-patient communication strategies focusing on improving patient understanding of the rationale for CRC screening and the effectiveness of available screening options as well as addressing barriers and enhancing patients’ self-efficacy in completing their preferred screening option.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Xuan & Squiers, Linda & Helmueller, Leah & Madson, Gabriel & Southwell, Brian G. & Alam, Shama & Finney Rutten, Lila J., 2024. "Provider communication contributes to colorectal cancer screening intention through improving screening outcome expectancies and perceived behavioral control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:340:y:2024:i:c:s0277953623007542
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623007542
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116397?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Buuren, Stef & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin, 2011. "mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 45(i03).
    2. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Georges Steffgen & Philipp E. Sischka & Martha Fernandez de Henestrosa, 2020. "The Quality of Work Index and the Quality of Employment Index: A Multidimensional Approach of Job Quality and Its Links to Well-Being at Work," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-31, October.
    2. Sebastian Kurten & David Winant & Kathleen Beullens, 2021. "Mothers Matter: Using Regression Tree Algorithms to Predict Adolescents’ Sharing of Drunk References on Social Media," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Eva Spiritus-Beerden & An Verelst & Ines Devlieger & Nina Langer Primdahl & Fábio Botelho Guedes & Antonio Chiarenza & Stephanie De Maesschalck & Natalie Durbeej & Rocío Garrido & Margarida Gaspar de , 2021. "Mental Health of Refugees and Migrants during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Experienced Discrimination and Daily Stressors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Marjolein C. J. Caniëls & Wim Lambrechts & Johannes (Joost) Platje & Anna Motylska-Kuźma & Bartosz Fortuński, 2021. "50 Shades of Green: Insights into Personal Values and Worldviews as Drivers of Green Purchasing Intention, Behaviour, and Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Courtney M. Cooper & Jeff B. Langman & Dilshani Sarathchandra & Chantal A. Vella & Chloe B. Wardropper, 2020. "Perceived Risk and Intentions to Practice Health Protective Behaviors in a Mining-Impacted Region," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Kevin Petersen & Donald Papy & Alejandro Mouro & Barak Ariel, 2023. "The usage and utility of body‐worn camera footage in courts: A survey analysis of state prosecutors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 534-569, September.
    7. Jan Sandora & Lukas Novak & Robert Brnka & Jitse P. van Dijk & Peter Tavel & Klara Malinakova, 2021. "The Abbreviated Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) and the Abbreviated Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS): Psychometric Properties and Evaluation of the Czech ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-15, September.
    8. Stephanie Jütersonke & Martin Groß, 2023. "The Effect of Social Recognition on Support for Climate Change Mitigation Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-29, December.
    9. Bence Csaba Farkas & Valérian Chambon & Pierre O. Jacquet, 2022. "Do perceived control and time orientation mediate the effect of early life adversity on reproductive behaviour and health status? Insights from the European Value Study and the European Social Survey," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Jeffrey M. DeVries & Carsten Szardenings & Philipp Doebler & Markus Gebhardt, 2021. "Subject-Specific Self-Concept and Global Self-Esteem Mediate Risk Factors for Lower Competency in Mathematics and Reading," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Esef Hakan Toytok & Sungur Gürel, 2019. "Does Project Children’s University Increase Academic Self-Efficacy in 6th Graders? A Weak Experimental Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, February.
    12. Kate R. Pawloski & Betty Kolod & Rabeea F. Khan & Vishal Midya & Tania Chen & Adeyemi Oduwole & Bernard Camins & Elena Colicino & I. Michael Leitman & Ismail Nabeel & Kristin Oliver & Damaskini Valvi, 2021. "Factors Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Physician Trainees in New York City during the First COVID-19 Wave," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-15, May.
    13. Hayes, Timothy & McArdle, John J., 2017. "Should we impute or should we weight? Examining the performance of two CART-based techniques for addressing missing data in small sample research with nonnormal variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 35-52.
    14. Pierre O. Jacquet & Farid Pazhoohi & Charles Findling & Hugo Mell & Coralie Chevallier & Nicolas Baumard, 2021. "Predictive modeling of religiosity, prosociality, and moralizing in 295,000 individuals from European and non-European populations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Eichelberger, Dominique A. & Sticca, Fabio & Kübler, Dinah R. & Kakebeeke, Tanja H. & Caflisch, Jon A. & Jenni, Oskar G. & Wehrle, Flavia M., 2023. "Stability of mental abilities and physical growth from 6 months to 65 years: Findings from the Zurich Longitudinal Studies," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Monica E. Ellwood-Lowe & Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli & Silvia A. Bunge, 2021. "Brain network coupling associated with cognitive performance varies as a function of a child’s environment in the ABCD study," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Michaelis, Timothy L. & Carr, Jon C. & Scheaf, David J. & Pollack, Jeffrey M., 2020. "The frugal entrepreneur: A self-regulatory perspective of resourceful entrepreneurial behavior," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(4).
    18. Nowak, Sarah A. & Parker, Andrew M. & Gidengil, Courtney A. & Richardson, Andrea S. & Walsh, Matthew M. & Kennedy, David P. & Vardavas, Raffaele, 2022. "Reciprocal relationships among influenza experiences, perceptions, and behavior: Results from a national, longitudinal survey of United States adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    19. Pedro J. C. Costa & Richard A. Inman & Paulo A. S. Moreira, 2022. "The Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS): Further Evidence of Factorial Structure, Reliability, and Relations with Other Indicators of Subjective Wellbeing," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(6), pages 3541-3558, December.
    20. Steffen Nestler & Oliver Lüdtke & Alexander Robitzsch, 2022. "Analyzing Longitudinal Social Relations Model Data Using the Social Relations Structural Equation Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 47(2), pages 231-260, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:340:y:2024:i:c:s0277953623007542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.