4.2 Article

The role of perceived benefits and barriers in colorectal cancer screening in intervention trials among African Americans

Journal

HEALTH EDUCATION RESEARCH
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 205-217

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/her/cyy013

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [R01CA147313]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [C50113185, 5U48DP00046-03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Health BeliefModel (HBM) is widely used in health behavior interventions. The lack of diverse samples in the development of this theory warrants additional study on how it performs among minorities. While studies have utilized HBM to address colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, limited information exists confirming how these constructs influence screening. Data from three CRC screening trials were used to examine how perceived benefits/barriers perform among African Americans (AA) and whether they serve as mechanisms of the intervention effects on screening. The data were collected in AA churches (Study 1: N = 103; Study 2: N = 285; Study 3: N = 374) where lay members conducted CRC education to increase screening. Participants perceived benefits from colonoscopy (M = 2.4/3, SD = 0.87) and perceived few barriers (M = 0.63/8, SD = 1.1). Benefits were perceived for the fecal occult blood test (M = 11.4/15, SD = 2.1), and few barriers were reported (M = 11.7/30, SD = 3.4). Benefits more consistently predicted pre-intervention screening relative to barriers. For Study 3, individuals with fewer barriers reported a greater increase in colonoscopy screening at 12-months versus those with higher barriers (OR = 0.595, 95% CI = 0.368-0.964), P = 0.035). Benefits/barriers did not mediate the relationship. Potential measurement limitations, particularly for barriers, were uncovered and further research on how to assess factors preventing AA from screening is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available