Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRakowski, William
dc.contributor.authorAndersen, M. Robyn
dc.contributor.authorStoddard, Anne M.
dc.contributor.authorUrban, Nicole
dc.contributor.authorRimer, Barbara K.
dc.contributor.authorLane, Dorothy S.
dc.contributor.authorFox, Sarah A.
dc.contributor.authorCostanza, Mary E.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:11:04.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:30:55Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:30:55Z
dc.date.issued1997-09-01
dc.date.submitted2007-07-30
dc.identifier.citation<p>Health Psychol. 1997 Sep;16(5):433-41.</p>
dc.identifier.issn0278-6133 (Print)
dc.identifier.doi10.1037/0278-6133.16.5.433
dc.identifier.pmid9302540
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/50615
dc.description.abstractThis investigation extends prior research to apply decision-making constructs from the transtheoretical model (TTM) of behavior change to mammography screening. Study subjects were 8,914 women ages 50-80, recruited from 40 primarily rural communities in Washington State. Structural equation modeling showed that favorable and unfavorable opinions about mammography (i.e., pros and cons) fit the observed data. Analysis of variance supported the associations between readiness to obtain screening (i.e., stage of adoption) and opinions about mammography (i.e., decisional balance) previously found in research using smaller samples from another geographic region. This report extends these earlier studies by using structural equation modeling, opinion scales based both on principal component analyses and on a priori definitions, a developmental sample and a confirmatory sample, and by sampling from a different geographic region. It is recommended that future research examine whether opinions regarding the cons of mammography are more individually specific than the pros.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9302540&dopt=Abstract">Link to article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.relation.urlhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00003615-199709000-00004&LSLINK=80&D=ovft
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectBreast Neoplasms
dc.subjectDecision Support Techniques
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMammography
dc.subjectMass Screening
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subject*Patient Acceptance of Health Care
dc.subjectWashington
dc.subjectLife Sciences
dc.subjectMedicine and Health Sciences
dc.subjectWomen's Studies
dc.titleConfirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleHealth psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association
dc.source.volume16
dc.source.issue5
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/wfc_pp/144
dc.identifier.contextkey330380
html.description.abstract<p>This investigation extends prior research to apply decision-making constructs from the transtheoretical model (TTM) of behavior change to mammography screening. Study subjects were 8,914 women ages 50-80, recruited from 40 primarily rural communities in Washington State. Structural equation modeling showed that favorable and unfavorable opinions about mammography (i.e., pros and cons) fit the observed data. Analysis of variance supported the associations between readiness to obtain screening (i.e., stage of adoption) and opinions about mammography (i.e., decisional balance) previously found in research using smaller samples from another geographic region. This report extends these earlier studies by using structural equation modeling, opinion scales based both on principal component analyses and on a priori definitions, a developmental sample and a confirmatory sample, and by sampling from a different geographic region. It is recommended that future research examine whether opinions regarding the cons of mammography are more individually specific than the pros.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathwfc_pp/144
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology
dc.source.pages433-41


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record