Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis

Lisa Carter-Harris, James E. Slaven, Patrick O. Monahan, Claire Burke Draucker, Emilee Vode, Susan M. Rawl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual’s perspective. Methods: Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables. Results: Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Medical Screening
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Early Detection of Cancer
Lung Neoplasms
Self Efficacy
Fear

Keywords

  • conceptual model
  • health behaviour
  • health beliefs
  • Lung cancer screening
  • path analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis. / Carter-Harris, Lisa; Slaven, James E.; Monahan, Patrick O.; Draucker, Claire Burke; Vode, Emilee; Rawl, Susan M.

In: Journal of Medical Screening, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0f0df7973a2d4f18b7f9351f9c2b0c74,
title = "Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis",
abstract = "Objective: Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual’s perspective. Methods: Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables. Results: Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.",
keywords = "conceptual model, health behaviour, health beliefs, Lung cancer screening, path analysis",
author = "Lisa Carter-Harris and Slaven, {James E.} and Monahan, {Patrick O.} and Draucker, {Claire Burke} and Emilee Vode and Rawl, {Susan M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0969141319876961",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Medical Screening",
issn = "0969-1413",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis

AU - Carter-Harris, Lisa

AU - Slaven, James E.

AU - Monahan, Patrick O.

AU - Draucker, Claire Burke

AU - Vode, Emilee

AU - Rawl, Susan M.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective: Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual’s perspective. Methods: Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables. Results: Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

AB - Objective: Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual’s perspective. Methods: Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables. Results: Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

KW - conceptual model

KW - health behaviour

KW - health beliefs

KW - Lung cancer screening

KW - path analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073990912&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073990912&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0969141319876961

DO - 10.1177/0969141319876961

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85073990912

JO - Journal of Medical Screening

JF - Journal of Medical Screening

SN - 0969-1413

ER -