癌症担忧频率与强度及其与自我报告的结直肠癌筛查参与度的关系：一项基于人群的研究。
Cancer worry frequency vs. intensity and self-reported colorectal cancer screening uptake: A population-based study.
机构信息
Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
出版信息
J Med Screen. 2019 Dec;26(4):169-178. doi: 10.1177/0969141319842331. Epub 2019 May 1.
OBJECTIVES
Many studies of cancer worry use items measuring frequency or intensity. Little is known about how each of these relate to cancer screening uptake. This study compared the association between worry frequency vs. intensity and colorectal cancer screening intention/uptake.
METHODS
Across four surveys (2014–2016), we collected data from 2878 screening-eligible men and women (aged 60–70) in England. Measures included single-items assessing cancer worry frequency and intensity, and a derived combination of both. We also assessed self-reported past faecal occult blood testing uptake (ever vs. never), intention to participate when next invited (yes vs. no), and demographics. Using logistic regression, we compared a model containing sociodemographic characteristics (Model 1), with four models adding cancer worry frequency (Model 2), intensity (Model 3), both (Model 4), or the combined measure (Model 5).
RESULTS
A model with cancer worry intensity and demographics (Model 3) explained significantly more variance in uptake and intention ( = 0.068 and 0.062, respectively) than demographics alone (Model 1: = 0.058 and 0.042; < 0.001), or a model with demographics and cancer worry frequency (Model 2: = 0.059 and 0.052; < 0.001). The model was also equally as effective as models including both the frequency and intensity items (Model 4: = 0.070 n.s. and 0.062 n.s.), or using the derived combination of both (Model 5: = 0.063 n.s. and 0.053 n.s.).
CONCLUSION
A single item measure of cancer worry intensity appeared to be most parsimonious for explaining variance in colorectal cancer screening intention and uptake.
目的
许多癌症担忧研究使用测量频率或强度的项目。对于这些项目与癌症筛查参与度之间的关系，人们知之甚少。本研究比较了担忧频率与强度与结直肠癌筛查意向/参与度之间的关系。
方法
在四个调查中（2014-2016 年），我们从英格兰 2878 名符合筛查条件的男性和女性（年龄 60-70 岁）中收集了数据。测量包括评估癌症担忧频率和强度的单项测量，以及两者的综合衍生测量。我们还评估了过去粪便潜血检测的自我报告参与情况（有或无）、下次受邀时的参与意向（是或否）以及人口统计学特征。使用逻辑回归，我们比较了包含社会人口统计学特征的模型（模型 1）与四个分别加入癌症担忧频率（模型 2）、强度（模型 3）、两者（模型 4）或综合测量（模型 5）的模型。
结果
包含癌症担忧强度和人口统计学特征的模型（模型 3）比仅包含人口统计学特征的模型（模型 1）能够更好地解释参与度和意向的差异（分别为 = 0.068 和 0.062）（ < 0.001），或比包含人口统计学特征和癌症担忧频率的模型（模型 2）更好（分别为 = 0.059 和 0.052； < 0.001）。该模型与包含频率和强度项的模型（模型 4： = 0.070，无统计学意义和 0.062，无统计学意义）或使用两者的综合测量（模型 5： = 0.063，无统计学意义和 0.053，无统计学意义）同样有效。
结论
癌症担忧强度的单项测量似乎最能有效地解释结直肠癌筛查意向和参与度的差异。
Zotero 插件