IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i7p1509-d158420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Decision-Making and Women’s Adherence to Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings

Author

Listed:
  • Jayoung Han

    (Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 230 Park Ave, Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA)

  • Paiboon Jungsuwadee

    (Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 230 Park Ave, Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA)

  • Olufunmilola Abraham

    (Social and Administrative Sciences Division, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 777 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53705, USA)

  • Dongwoo Ko

    (Department of Marketing, College of Business, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 107 Imun-ro, Imun 1-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02450, Korea)

Abstract

We examined the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) on women’s adherence to breast and cervical cancer screenings and estimated the prevalence and adherence rate of screenings. The study used a descriptive cross-sectional design using the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) data collected by the National Cancer Institute. Adherence was defined based on the guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the composite measure of shared decision-making was constructed using three items in the data. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the association between the SDM and adherence, controlling for cancer beliefs and socio-demographic variables. The analysis included 742 responses. Weighted to represent the U.S. population, 68.1% adhered to both breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. The composite measure of SDM was reliable (α = 0.85), and a higher SDM score was associated with women’s screening adherence (b = 0.17; p = 0.009). There were still women who did not receive cancer screenings as recommended. The results suggest that the use of the SDM approach for healthcare professionals’ communication with patients can improve screening adherence.

Suggested Citation

  • Jayoung Han & Paiboon Jungsuwadee & Olufunmilola Abraham & Dongwoo Ko, 2018. "Shared Decision-Making and Women’s Adherence to Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:7:p:1509-:d:158420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/7/1509/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/7/1509/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L. Aubree Shay & Jennifer Elston Lafata, 2015. "Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 114-131, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Esther E. Idehen & Anna-Maija Pietilä & Mari Kangasniemi, 2020. "Barriers and Facilitators to Cervical Screening among Migrant Women of African Origin: A Qualitative Study in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sumayah Rodenburg-Vandenbussche & Arwen H Pieterse & Pieter M Kroonenberg & Isabelle Scholl & Trudy van der Weijden & Gre P M Luyten & Roy F P M Kruitwagen & Henk den Ouden & Ingrid V E Carlier & Iren, 2015. "Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Underman, Kelly & Hirshfield, Laura E., 2016. "Detached concern?: Emotional socialization in twenty-first century medical education," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 94-101.
    3. Anders Broström & Bengt Fridlund & Berith Hedberg & Per Nilsen & Martin Ulander, 2017. "Communication between patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome and healthcare personnel during the initial visit to a continuous positive airway pressure clinic," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3-4), pages 568-577, February.
    4. Maya Kylén & Ulla-Karin Schön & Hélène Pessah-Rasmussen & Marie Elf, 2022. "Patient Participation and the Environment: A Scoping Review of Instruments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Footman, Katy, 2024. "The illusion of treatment choice in abortion care: A qualitative study of comparative care experiences in England and Wales," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    6. Francesco Baratta & Francesco Angelico & Maria Del Ben, 2023. "Challenges in Improving Adherence to Diet and Drug Treatment in Hypercholesterolemia Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-12, May.
    7. Michael Brown & Anna Higgins & Juliet MacArthur, 2020. "Transition from child to adult health services: A qualitative study of the views and experiences of families of young adults with intellectual disabilities," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1-2), pages 195-207, January.
    8. Mara Gorli & Serena Barello, 2021. "Patient Centredness, Values, Equity and Sustainability: Professional, Organizational and Institutional Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-7, November.
    9. Rami H. Al-Rifai & Iffat Elbarazi & Nasloon Ali & Tom Loney & Abderrahim Oulhaj & Luai A. Ahmed, 2020. "Knowledge and Preference Towards Mode of Delivery among Pregnant Women in the United Arab Emirates: The Mutaba’ah Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Meron Hirpa & Tinsay Woreta & Hilena Addis & Sosena Kebede, 2020. "What matters to patients? A timely question for value-based care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
    11. Yuko Goto & Hisayuki Miura, 2022. "Validation of the Novel Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Team Building in Patient-Centered Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    12. Lama Sultan & Basim Alsaywid & Nynke De Jong & Jascha De Nooijer, 2022. "Current Trends in Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Programmes in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-39, October.
    13. Semra Ozdemir & Isha Chaudhry & Si Ning Germaine Tan & Irene Teo & Chetna Malhotra & Rahul Malhotra & Eric Andrew Finkelstein, 2023. "Variation in Patient-Reported Decision-Making Roles in the Last Year of Life among Patients with Metastatic Cancer: A Longitudinal Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 203-213, February.
    14. Charlotte Ytterberg & Hanne Kaae Kristensen & Malin Tistad & Lena von Koch, 2020. "Factors related to met needs for rehabilitation 6 years after stroke," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    15. repec:oup:jconrs:v:49:y:2023:i:5:p:926-939. is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Aleksandra Kołtuniuk & Justyna Chojdak-Łukasiewicz, 2022. "Adherence to Therapy in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis—Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-9, February.
    17. Loïs F. van de Water & Danique W. Bos–van den Hoek & Steven C. Kuijper & Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven & Geert-Jan Creemers & Serge E. Dohmen & Helle-Brit Fiebrich & Petronella B. Ottevanger & Dirkje, 2024. "Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(1), pages 89-101, January.
    18. Arwen H. Pieterse & Kim Brandes & Jessica de Graaf & Joyce E. de Boer & Nanon H. M. Labrie & Anouk Knops & Cornelia F. Allaart & Johanna E. A. Portielje & Willem Jan W. Bos & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2022. "Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 375-386, April.
    19. Semra Ozdemir & Jia Jia Lee & Khung Keong Yeo & Kheng Leng David Sim & Eric Andrew Finkelstein & Chetna Malhotra, 2023. "A Prospective Cohort Study of Medical Decision-Making Roles and Their Associations with Patient Characteristics and Patient-Reported Outcomes among Patients with Heart Failure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 863-874, October.
    20. Ruth E Pel-Littel & Cynthia S Hofman & Liesje Yu & Silke F Metzelthin & Franca H Leeuwis & Jeanet W Blom & B M Buurman & Mirella M Minkman, 2019. "Recommendations of older adults on how to use the PROM ‘TOPICS-MDS’ in healthcare conversations: A Delphi study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:7:p:1509-:d:158420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.