Motivating mammography adherence in elderly latinas: A test of three mathematical models of decision making

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 448-465

  Veit, Clairice T ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer screening; Elderly Latinas; Screening barriers; Testing decision models

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MINORITY GROUP; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT EDUCATION; QUESTIONNAIRE;

AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALIFORNIA; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HISPANIC AMERICANS; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; POVERTY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 0032863934     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900413     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Kerilikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta analysis. JAMA. 1995;273:149-54.
2. Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AK. The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in young women. Online J Curr Clin Trials. Doc. #32, 1993.
3. Frisell J, Eklund G, Helstrom L, Lidbrink L, Rutqvist LE, Somell A. Randomized study of mammography screening: preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991;18:49-56.
4. UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group. First results on mortality reduction in the UK trial of early detection of breast cancer. Lancet. 1988;2:411-6.
5. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ. 1988;297:943-8.
6. Fox SA, Roetzheim R, Veit CT. Barriers to breast cancer screening and strategies to overcome them. In: Jatoi I (ed). Breast Cancer Screening. Austin, TX: Landes Bioscience, 1997.
7. National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Consortium for Underserved Women. Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening among Underserved Women. Baseline Survey Results from 6 States. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4:617-24.
8. Fox SA, Roetzheim RG. Screening mammography and older Hispanic women: current status and issues. Cancer. 1994; 74suppl:2028-33.
9. Calle EE, Flanders WD, Thun MJ, Martin LM. Demographic predictors of mammography and Pap smear screening in U.S. women. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:53-60.
10. Anda RF, Sienko DG, Remington PL, Gentry EM, Marks JA. Screening mammography for women 50 years of age and older: Practices and Trends. 1987. Am J Prev Med. 1990;6: 123-9.
11. Morris CR, Wright WE. Breast Cancer in California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance Section, 1996.
12. Baezconde-Garbanati L, Kerner J, Richardson, J, Cantero P. Breast cancer among Latinas: a summary of the literature. Los Angeles, CA: Morris Comprehensive Cancer Center and COSSMHO, University of Southern California, 1995.
13. Trapido E, Validez RB, Obeso J, et al. Epidemiology of cancer among Hispanics in the U.S. J NCI Monograph. 1995;18:17-28.
14. Delgado D, Lin WY, Coffey M. The role of Hispanic race/ ethnicity and poverty. In: Breast Cancer Survival. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, 1994.
15. Valdez B, Delgado D, et al. Cancer in U.S. Latino communities: an exploratory review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1990.
16. Caplan LS, Wells B, Haynes S. Breast cancer screening among older racial/ethnic minorities and whites: barriers to early detection. J Gerontol. 1992;47:101-10.
17. Harlan LC, Bernstein AB, Kessler LG. Cervical cancer screening: who is not screened and why? Am J Public Health. 1991; 1:885-90.
18. Darlington RB. Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychol Bull. 1968;69:161-82.
19. Schönemann PH, Cafferty T, Rutton J. A note on additive functional measurement. Psychol Rev. 1973;80:85-7.
20. Veit CT, Callero M. A method for measuring the value of scout/reconnaissance. MR-476-A. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1995.
21. Birnbaum MH, Coffey G, Mellers BA, Weiss R. Utility measurement: configural-weight theory and the judge's point of view. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform. 1992;18:331-346.
22. Veit CT, Callero M, Rose BJ. Demonstration of the subjective transfer function approach applied to air-force-wide mission area analysis. N-1831-AF. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1982.
23. Anderson NH. Foundations of Information Integration Theory. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1981.
24. Birnbaum MH, Stegner SE. Measuring the importance of cues in judgment for individuals: subjective theories of IQ as a function of heredity and environment. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1981;17:159-82.
25. Birnbaum MH, Wong R, Wong L. Combining information from sources that vary in credibility. Mem Cogn. 1976;4:330-6.
26. Birnbaum MH. The nonadditivity of personality impressions. J Exp Psychol Mon. 1974;102:543-61.
27. Birnbaum MH, Stegner S. Source credibility, expertise, bias, and the judge's point of view. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979;37: 47-74.
28. Birnbaum MH, Sutton SA. Scale convergence and utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1992;52:183-215.
29. Anderson T, Birnbaum MH. Test of an additive model of social inference. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1976;33:655-62.
30. Birnbaum M. Morality judgments: tests of an averaging model. J Exp Psychol. 1972;93:35-42.
31. Weber EU, Anderson CJ, Birnbaum MH. A theory of perceived risk and attractiveness. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1992;52:492-523.
32. Birnbaum MH. Intuitive numerical prediction. Am J Psychol. 1976;89:417-29.
33. Veit CT. Ratios and subtractive processes in psychophysical judgment. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1978;107:81-107.
34. Birnbaum MH. Comparison of two theories of "ratio" and "difference" judgments. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1980;109:304-19.
35. Chandler JP. STEPIT - Finds local minima of a smooth function of several parameters. Behav Sci. 1969;14:81-2.
36. Luce RD, Narens L. Classification of concatenation measurement structures according to scale type. J Math Psychol. 1985;29:1-72.