Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Erschienen in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2014

01.08.2014 | Original Article

Disgusted, Embarrassed, Annoyed: Affective Associations Relate to Uptake of Colonoscopy Screening

verfasst von: Marc T. Kiviniemi, PhD, Lina Jandorf, MA, Deborah O. Erwin, PhD

Erschienen in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is lower than desired. Screening decision making research has traditionally focused on benefits and barriers to screening. This study examines the relation of affective associations with screening (feelings and emotions associated with screening) to colonoscopy screening uptake.

Methods

Participants were 103 African American community adults. Participants completed a structured interview assessing perceived benefits of and barriers to colonoscopy screening, affective associations with colonoscopy, colonoscopy screening behavior, and intentions for future screening.

Results

Higher positive and lower negative affective associations with screening were both significant predictors of colonoscopy uptake. Affective associations fully mediated the relation of perceived benefits and barriers to screening uptake. Affective associations were associated with intentions for future screening.

Conclusions

Incorporation of affective associations into models of screening decision making and intervention approaches to address screening compliance has utility for advancing our understanding of screening adherence as well as increasing screening rates.
Literatur
1.
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2009. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2009.
2.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008; 58: 71-96.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2002; 137: 132-141.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996; 348: 1467-1471.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F, Bond JH. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 91: 434-437.CrossRef
6.
Muller AD, Sonnenberg A. Protection by endoscopy against death from colorectal cancer. A case–control study among veterans. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1995; 155: 1741-1748.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Newcomb PA, Norfleet RG, Storer BE, Surawicz TS, Marcus PM. Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1992; 84: 1572-1575.CrossRef
8.
Thiis-Evensen E, Hoff GS, Sauar J, et al. Population-based surveillance by colonoscopy: effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer.Telemark Polyp Study I. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. 1999; 34: 414-420.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Walsh JME, Terdiman JP. Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review. JAMA. 2003; 289: 1288-1296.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Meissner HI, Breen N, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW. Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention. 2006; 15: 389-394.CrossRef
11.
Nadel MR, Blackman DK, Shapiro JA, Seeff LC. Are people being screened for colorectal cancer as recommended? Results from the National Health Interview Survey. Preventive Medicine. 2002; 35: 199-206.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Shapiro JA, Seeff LC, Thompson TD, et al. Colorectal cancer test use from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17: 1623-1630.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increased use of colorectal cancer tests--United States, 2002 and 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2006; 55: 308-311.
14.
Subramanian S, Klosterman M, Amonkar MM, Hunt TL. Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review. Preventive Medicine. 2004; 38: 536-550.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Vernon SW. Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997; 89: 1406-1422.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Kiviniemi MT, Bennett A, Zaiter M, Marshall JR. Decision Making For Colorectal Cancer Screening: What Do We Know about Theoretical Models of Decision Making? Psycho-Oncology. 2011; 20: 1023-1033.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
17.
Kiviniemi MT, Hay JL, James AS, et al. Decision Making About Cancer Screening: An Assessment of the State of the Science and a Suggested Research Agenda. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 2009; 18: 3133-3137.CrossRef
18.
Hay JL, Ford JS, Klein D, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening in mammography-adherent older women. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2003; 26: 553-576.PubMedCrossRef
19.
James AS, Campbell MK, Hudson MA. Perceived barriers and benefits to colon cancer screening among African Americans in North Carolina: how does perception relate to screening behavior? Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention. 2002; 11: 529-534.
20.
Janz NK, Wren PA, Schottenfeld D, Guire KE. Colorectal cancer screening attitudes and behavior: A population-based study. Preventive Medicine. 2003; 37: 627-634.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Menon U, Champion VL, Larkin GN, et al. Beliefs associated with fecal occult blood test and colonoscopy use at a worksite colon cancer screening program. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2003; 45: 891-898.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
22.
Zheng Y-F, Saito T, Takahashi M, Ishibashi T, Kai I. Factors associated with intentions to adhere to colorectal cancer screening follow-up exams. BMC Public Health. 2006; 6: 272.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
23.
Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2001; 40: 471-499.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Harrison JA, Mullen PD, Green LW. A meta-analysis of studies of the health belief model with adults. Health Education Research. 1992; 7: 107-116.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Sheeran P, Taylor S. Predicting intentions to use condoms: A meta-analysis and comparison of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1999; 29: 1624-1675.CrossRef
26.
Kiviniemi MT, Voss-Humke AM, Seifert AL. How Do I Feel About the Behavior? The Interplay of Affective Associations With Behaviors and Cognitive Beliefs as Influences on Physical Activity Behavior. Health Psychology. 2007; 26: 152-158.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kiviniemi MT, Duangdao KM. Affective associations mediate the influence of cost-benefit beliefs on fruit and vegetable consumption. Appetite. 2009; 52: 771-775.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
28.
Walsh EM, Kiviniemi MT: Changing How I Feel About the Food: Experimentally Manipulated Affective Associations With Fruits Change Fruit Choice Behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s10865-012-9490-5
29.
Codori AM, Petersen GM, Miglioretti DL, Boyd P. Health beliefs and endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer: potential for cancer prevention. Preventive Medicine. 2001; 33: 128-136.PubMed
30.
Janz NK, Lakhani I, Vijan S, et al. Determinants of colorectal cancer screening use, attempts, and non-use. Preventive Medicine. 2007; 44: 452-458.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Coombes JM, et al. Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005; 20: 989-995.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
Chapple A, Ziebland S, Hewitson P, McPherson A. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Social Science and Medicine. 2008; 66: 2425-2435.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Shapiro JA, Klabunde CN, Thompson TD, et al. Patterns of Colorectal Cancer Test Use, Including CT Colonography, in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers and prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2012; 21: 895-904.CrossRef
34.
Klabunde CN, Lanier D, Nadel MR, et al. Colorectal Cancer Screening by Primary Care Physicians: Recommendations and Practices, 2006–2007. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2009; 37: 8-16.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, et al. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149: 659-669.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
36.
Crites SL, Fabrigar LR, Petty RE. Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1994; 20: 619-634.CrossRef
37.
Rawl SM, Champion V, Menon U, et al. Validation of scales to measure benefits of and barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology. 2001; 19: 47-63.CrossRef
38.
39.
Korn EL, Graubard BI. Analysis of Health Surveys. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1999.CrossRef
40.
Powe BD, Faulkenberry R, Harmond L. A review of intervention studies that seek to increase colorectal cancer screening among african-americans. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2010; 25: 92-99.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Rawl SM, Menon U, Burness A, Breslau ES. Interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening: An integrative review. Nursing Outlook. 2012; 60: 172-181. e113.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
Ferrer RA, Fisher JD, Buck R, Amico KR. Pilot test of an emotional education intervention component for sexual risk reduction. Health Psychology. 2011; 30: 656-660.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Kiviniemi MT, Saad-Harfouche FG, Ciupak GL, et al.: Pilot Intervention Outcomes of an Educational Program for Biospecimen Research Participation. Journal of Cancer Education. 2012, 28(1):52–59
44.
Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Ward J. Physical activity and adolescents: An exploratory randomized controlled trial investigating the influence of affective and instrumental text messages. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2010; 15: 825-840.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Partin MR, Grill J, Noorbaloochi S, et al. Validation of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior from a mixed-mode survey of veterans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17: 768-776.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kiviniemi MT, Orom H, Giovino GA. Psychological Distress and Smoking Behavior: The Nature of the Relation Differs By Race/Ethnicity. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2011; 13: 113-119.CrossRef
47.
Kiviniemi MT, Orom H, Giovino GA. Race/ethnicity, psychological distress, and fruit/vegetable consumption. The nature of the distress-behavior relation differs by race/ethnicity. Appetite. 2011; 56: 737-740.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
48.
Tsai JL, Knutson B, Fung HH. Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 90: 288-307.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Tsai JL. Ideal affect: Cultural causes and behavioral consequences. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2007; 2: 242-259.CrossRef
50.
Swan J, Breen N, Graubard BI, et al. Data and trends in cancer screening in the United States: results from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer. 2010; 116: 4872-4881.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
51.
52.
Metadaten
Titel
Disgusted, Embarrassed, Annoyed: Affective Associations Relate to Uptake of Colonoscopy Screening
verfasst von
Marc T. Kiviniemi, PhD
Lina Jandorf, MA
Deborah O. Erwin, PhD
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2014
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0883-6612
Elektronische ISSN: 1532-4796
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9580-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Brief Report

Implementation Intentions for Physical Activity Behavior in Older Adult Women: An Examination of Executive Function as a Moderator of Treatment Effects

Original Article

Self-regulation of Exercise Behavior in the TIGER Study

Original Article

Stress-Related Clinical Pain and Mood in Women with Chronic Pain: Moderating Effects of Depression and Positive Mood Induction

Original Article

Reassurance and Distress Behavior in Preschool Children Undergoing Dental Preventive Care Procedures in a Community Setting: a Multilevel Observational Study

Invited Commentary

Beliefs About Medicines in 3D: a Comment on Phillips et al.

Original Article

The Dynamic Relationship Between Social Support and HIV-Related Stigma in Rural Uganda

Neu in den Fachgebieten Neurologie und Psychiatrie

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

28.04.2024 Schwindel Nachrichten

Akuter Schwindel stellt oft eine diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Wie nützlich dabei eine MRT ist, hat eine Studie aus Finnland untersucht. Immerhin einer von sechs Patienten wurde mit akutem ischämischem Schlaganfall diagnostiziert.

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Frühe Alzheimertherapie lohnt sich

25.04.2024 AAN-Jahrestagung 2024 Nachrichten

Ist die Tau-Last noch gering, scheint der Vorteil von Lecanemab besonders groß zu sein. Und beginnen Erkrankte verzögert mit der Behandlung, erreichen sie nicht mehr die kognitive Leistung wie bei einem früheren Start. Darauf deuten neue Analysen der Phase-3-Studie Clarity AD.

Viel Bewegung in der Parkinsonforschung

25.04.2024 Parkinson-Krankheit Nachrichten

Neue arznei- und zellbasierte Ansätze, Frühdiagnose mit Bewegungssensoren, Rückenmarkstimulation gegen Gehblockaden – in der Parkinsonforschung tut sich einiges. Auf dem Deutschen Parkinsonkongress ging es auch viel um technische Innovationen.

Bildnachweise