IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i21p11093-d661945.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Intention to Participate in Breast Cancer Screening among Urban Chinese Women: An Application of the Protection Motivation Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Miao Zhang

    (Department of Epidemiology, School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China)

  • Wenshuang Wei

    (Department of Epidemiology, School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China)

  • Qinmei Li

    (Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Wuhan 430015, China)

  • Xinguang Chen

    (Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA)

  • Min Zhang

    (Institute of Cancer Prevention and Control, Wuhan 430079, China)

  • Dan Zuo

    (Department of Epidemiology, School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China)

  • Qing Liu

    (Department of Epidemiology, School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China)

Abstract

Despite the significance of early detection of breast cancer through screening, the screening uptake in China remains relatively low. Protection motivation theory (PMT) suggested by Rogers is one of the theories concerning threat appeal. This study aimed to apply the protection motivation theory (PMT) in predicting breast cancer screening intention. In this cross-sectional study, a sample of Chinese urban women was recruited using the convenient sampling method from five communities in Wuhan. Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire that included demographic variables, knowledge about breast cancer, six PMT subconstructs, and screening intention. We used the structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify the predictor factors associated with screening intention. Of the total sample ( n = 412), 86.65% had intention to participate in screening. Our data fit the hypothesized SEM model well (Goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.91, adjusted GFI (AGFI) = 0.89, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05, standardized root mean residual (SRMR) = 0.06, and Chi-square/df = 2.01). Three PMT subconstructs (perceived severity, response cost, and self-efficacy) were significantly associated with screening intention. Knowledge, social status, and medical history had significantly indirect associations with screening intention through the mediating effect of PMT subconstructs. Considering the utility of PMT, intervention programs might be more effective based on the subconstructs of PMT, especially to improve self-efficacy, perceived severity, and knowledge, reduce response cost, as well as targeting specific demographic groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Miao Zhang & Wenshuang Wei & Qinmei Li & Xinguang Chen & Min Zhang & Dan Zuo & Qing Liu, 2021. "Determinants of Intention to Participate in Breast Cancer Screening among Urban Chinese Women: An Application of the Protection Motivation Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11093-:d:661945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11093/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11093/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yingyi Bao & Cannas Kwok & Chun Fan Lee, 2018. "Breast cancer screening behaviors among Chinese women in Mainland China," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 445-451, December.
    2. Orbell, Sheina, 1996. "Cognition and affect after cervical screening: The role of previous test outcome and personal obligation in future uptake expectations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1237-1243, October.
    3. Sarah Noman & Hayati Kadir Shahar & Hejar Abdul Rahman & Suriani Ismail & Musheer Abdulwahid Al-Jaberi & Meram Azzani, 2020. "The Effectiveness of Educational Interventions on Breast Cancer Screening Uptake, Knowledge, and Beliefs among Women: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-30, December.
    4. Walsh, Brendan & Silles, Mary & O'Neill, Ciarán, 2011. "The importance of socio-economic variables in cancer screening participation: A comparison between population-based and opportunistic screening in the EU-15," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 269-276, August.
    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. Folkert Groot & Stefano Capri & Jean-Claude Castanier & David Cunningham & Bruno Flamion & Mathias Flume & Harald Herholz & Lars-Åke Levin & Oriol Solà-Morales & Christoph J. Rupprecht & Natalie Shale, 2017. "Ethical Hurdles in the Prioritization of Oncology Care," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 119-126, April.
    2. Gallo, Federica & Caprioglio, Adele & Castagno, Roberta & Ronco, Guglielmo & Segnan, Nereo & Giordano, Livia, 2017. "Inequalities in cervical cancer screening utilisation and results: A comparison between Italian natives and immigrants from disadvantaged countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1072-1078.
    3. Isabella Rosato & Teresa Dalla Zuanna & Valentina Tricarico & Claudio Barbiellini Amidei & Cristina Canova, 2023. "Adherence to Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Migrant Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Missinne, Sarah & Bracke, Piet, 2015. "A cross-national comparative study on the influence of individual life course factors on mammography screening," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 709-719.
    5. Jolidon, Vladimir, 2022. "Gender inequality and mammography screening: Does living with a partner improve women's mammography uptake?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    6. Burns, Richeal & Walsh, Brendan & O’Neill, Stephen & O’Neill, Ciaran, 2012. "An examination of variations in the uptake of prostate cancer screening within and between the countries of the EU-27," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 268-276.
    7. Barbara Willems & Piet Bracke, 2018. "The education gradient in cancer screening participation: a consistent phenomenon across Europe?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(1), pages 93-103, January.
    8. Willems, Barbara & Bracke, Piet, 2018. "Participants, Physicians or Programmes: Participants’ educational level and initiative in cancer screening," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(4), pages 422-430.
    9. Carney, Patricia & O'Neill, Stephen & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2013. "Determinants of breast cancer screening uptake in women, evidence from the British Household Panel Survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 108-114.
    10. Ming-Jye Wang & Yi-Ting Lo, 2022. "Strategies for Improving the Utilization of Preventive Care Services: Application of Importance–Performance Gap Analysis Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-11, October.
    11. Nelisha Sarmah & Maureen Nokuthula Sibiya & Thandokuhle Emmanuel Khoza, 2023. "The Sociocultural Influences on Breast Cancer Screening among Rural African Women in South Africa," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(21), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Whynes, David K. & Philips, Zoe & Avis, Mark, 2007. "Why do women participate in the English cervical cancer screening programme?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 306-325, March.
    13. Priaulx, Jennifer & de Koning, Harry J. & de Kok, Inge M.C.M. & Széles, György & McKee, Martin, 2018. "Identifying the barriers to effective breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in thirty one European countries using the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST)," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(11), pages 1190-1197.
    14. Dugord, Clara & Franc, Carine, 2022. "Trajectories and individual determinants of regular cancer screening use over a long period based on data from the French E3N cohort," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    15. Hale Koç & Owen O’Donnell & Tom Van Ourti, 2018. "What Explains Education Disparities in Screening Mammography in the United States? A Comparison with The Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-13, September.
    16. Shen, Cheng-Ting & Chen, Fang-Ming & Hsieh, Hui-Min, 2020. "Effect of a national population-based breast cancer screening policy on participation in mammography and stage at breast cancer diagnosis in Taiwan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(4), pages 478-485.
    17. Bussière, Clémence & Le Vaillant, Marc & Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie, 2015. "Screening for cervical cancer: What are the determinants among adults with disabilities living in institutions? Findings from a National Survey in France," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 794-801.
    18. Koshi Takahashi & Sho Nakamura & Kaname Watanabe & Masahiko Sakaguchi & Hiroto Narimatsu, 2022. "Availability of Financial and Medical Resources for Screening Providers and Its Impact on Cancer Screening Uptake and Intervention Programs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-15, September.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11093-:d:661945. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.