Predicting men’s intentions to seek help for cancer symptoms: a comparison of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Health Belief Model

IF 3.6 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. Fish, I. Prichard, K. Ettridge, E. Grunfeld, Carlene J Wilson
{"title":"Predicting men’s intentions to seek help for cancer symptoms: a comparison of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Health Belief Model","authors":"J. Fish, I. Prichard, K. Ettridge, E. Grunfeld, Carlene J Wilson","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2022.2039042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective Targeted behavioural interventions are needed to address psychosocial factors leading to slower help-seeking for cancer symptoms among men. This study compared the variance in men’s help-seeking intentions explained by the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model. Method A cross-sectional survey of 127 men was conducted, testing symptom knowledge and theory-derived constructs from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (attitudes, perceived norms, perceived behavioural control) and Health Belief Model (susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers). The outcome variable was intention to seek help for cancer symptoms. Separate and combined hierarchical regressions tested the relative predictive power of the two models, potential overlap in variance explained, and the most salient constructs within the models. Results Separate regressions (controlling for age and symptom knowledge) showed each model explained 10–12% variance in men’s help-seeking intentions over and above the adjusted variables. The combined regression indicated symptom knowledge, perceived benefits, and perceived behavioural control were significant predictors of men’s intentions (35% total variance explained). Conclusions The Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model may not be optimal models for explaining men’s help-seeking intentions for cancer symptoms, however, select constructs are important correlates. Future interventions may usefully target symptom knowledge, health beliefs, and control beliefs.","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":"74 1","pages":"1 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2022.2039042","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective Targeted behavioural interventions are needed to address psychosocial factors leading to slower help-seeking for cancer symptoms among men. This study compared the variance in men’s help-seeking intentions explained by the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model. Method A cross-sectional survey of 127 men was conducted, testing symptom knowledge and theory-derived constructs from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (attitudes, perceived norms, perceived behavioural control) and Health Belief Model (susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers). The outcome variable was intention to seek help for cancer symptoms. Separate and combined hierarchical regressions tested the relative predictive power of the two models, potential overlap in variance explained, and the most salient constructs within the models. Results Separate regressions (controlling for age and symptom knowledge) showed each model explained 10–12% variance in men’s help-seeking intentions over and above the adjusted variables. The combined regression indicated symptom knowledge, perceived benefits, and perceived behavioural control were significant predictors of men’s intentions (35% total variance explained). Conclusions The Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model may not be optimal models for explaining men’s help-seeking intentions for cancer symptoms, however, select constructs are important correlates. Future interventions may usefully target symptom knowledge, health beliefs, and control beliefs.
预测男性因癌症症状寻求帮助的意向:计划行为理论与健康信念模型的比较
摘要目的需要有针对性的行为干预来解决导致男性癌症症状寻求帮助较慢的心理社会因素。本研究比较了用计划行为理论和健康信念模型解释的男性求助意向的差异。方法对127名男性进行横断面调查,测试计划行为理论(态度、感知规范、感知行为控制)和健康信念模型(易感性、严重性、益处、障碍)中的症状知识和理论推导结构。结果变量是意图寻求癌症症状的帮助。单独和组合的层次回归测试了两个模型的相对预测能力、解释的方差中的潜在重叠以及模型中最显著的结构。结果单独的回归(控制年龄和症状知识)显示,每个模型都解释了男性求助意愿的10-12%的差异,而不是调整后的变量。联合回归表明,症状知识、感知益处和感知行为控制是男性意图的重要预测因素(解释了35%的总方差)。结论计划行为理论和健康信念模型可能不是解释男性对癌症症状寻求帮助意图的最佳模型,但选择结构是重要的相关性。未来的干预措施可能有用地针对症状知识、健康信念和控制信念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Journal of Psychology
Australian Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Psychology is the premier scientific journal of the Australian Psychological Society. It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles on all topics within the broad scope of the discipline. The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with reviewers and associate editors providing detailed assistance to authors to reach publication. The journal publishes reports of experimental and survey studies, including reports of qualitative investigations, on pure and applied topics in the field of psychology. Articles on clinical psychology or on the professional concerns of applied psychology should be submitted to our sister journals, Australian Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. The journal publishes occasional reviews of specific topics, theoretical pieces and commentaries on methodological issues. There are also solicited book reviews and comments Annual special issues devoted to a single topic, and guest edited by a specialist editor, are published. The journal regards itself as international in vision and will accept submissions from psychologists in all countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信