Busy lifestyles and mammography screening: Time pressure and women's reattendance likelihood

Psychology and Health

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 928-938

  Brown, Stephen L ^a   Gibney, Triecia M ^b   Tarling, Rachel ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

breast cancer; mammography attendance; screening; self efficacy; time pressure

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BEHAVIOR; BREAST TUMOR; EMPLOYMENT; FAMILY SIZE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIFESTYLE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SELF CONCEPT; STATISTICS; TIME MANAGEMENT; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AUSTRALIA; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EMPLOYMENT; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTENTION; LIFE STYLE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SELF EFFICACY; TIME MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84880605520     PISSN: 08870446     EISSN: 14768321     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2013.766734     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Aiken, L. S. and West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Baer, M. and Oldham, G. R. 2006. The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 963 - 970.
3. Bandura, A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 248 - 287.
4. Bennett, P., Wilkinson, C., Turner, J., Griffith, G., France, B., Brain, K. and Gray, J. 2007. The impact of breast cancer genetic risk assessment on intentions to perform cancer surveillance behaviors. Journal of Genetic Counselling, 16: 617 - 623.
5. Bodian, C. A. 1993. Benign breast diseases, carcinoma in situ, and breast cancer risk. Epidemiologic Review, 15: 177 - 187.
6. Bradbury, A. R. and Oloparde, O. I. 2007. Genetic susceptibility to breast cancer. Review of Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders, 8: 255 - 267.
7. Breastscreen Victoria. 2004. Annual statistical report, 2002, Melbourne: Breastscreen Victoria.
8. Breastscreen Victoria. 2012. Annual statistical report, 2007, Melbourne: Breastscreen Victoria.
9. Champion, V. L. 1999. Revised susceptibility, benefits, and barriers scale for mammography screening. Research in Nursing and Health, 22: 341 - 348.
10. Champion, V., Skinner, C. S. and Menon, U. 2005. Development of a self-efficacy scale for mammography. Research in Nursing and Health, 28: 329 - 336.
11. Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M. and Folkman, S. 2006. A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11: 421 - 437.
12. Cohen, S. and Janicki-Deverts, D. 2009. Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 375 - 378.
13. Elkin, E. B., Ishill, N. M., Snow, J. G., Panageas, K. S., Bach, P. B., Liberman, L. and Schrag, D. 2010. Geographic access and the use of screening mammography. Medical Care, 48: 349 - 356.
14. Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S. and Rogers, R. W. 2000. A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30: 407 - 429.
15. Gollwitzer, P. M. and Moskowitz, G. B. 1996. " Goal effects on action and cognition ". In Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles, Edited by: Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W. 361 - 399. New York, NY: Guilford.
16. Gøtzsche, P. C., & Nielsen, M. (2009). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4.
17. Gram, I. T. and Slenker, S. E. 1992. Cancer anxiety and attitudes toward mammography among screening attenders, non-attenders and women never invited. American Journal of Public Health, 82: 249 - 252.
18. Hayes, A. F. and Matthes, J. 2009. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41: 924 - 936.
19. Karademas, E. C. and Kalantzi-Azizi, A. 2004. The stress process, self-efficacy expectations, and psychological health. Personality and Individual Differences, 37: 1033 - 1043.
20. Lantz, P. M., Stencil, D., Lippert, M. T., Beversdorf, S., Jaros, L. and Remington, P. L. 1995. Breast and cervical cancer screening in a low-income managed care sample: The efficacy of physician letters and phone calls. American Journal of Public Health, 85: 834 - 836.
21. Lazarus, R. S. 1993. Coping theory and research: Past, present and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55: 234 - 247.
22. Le Pine, J., Podsakoff, N. P. and Le Pine, M. A. 2005. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships amongst stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 764 - 755.
23. Maheswaren, R., Pearson, T., Jordan, H. and Bloch, D. 2006. Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60: 208 - 212.
24. Mattingley, M. J. and Bianchi, S. M. 2003. Gender differences in the quantity and quality of free time: The US experience. Social Forces, 81: 999 - 1030.
25. Milne, S., Sheeran, P. and Orbell, S. 2000. Prediction and intervention in health-related behavior: A meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30: 106 - 143.
26. Ohly, S. and Fritz, C. 2010. Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 543 - 565.
27. O'Neil, S. C., Bowling, J. M., Brewer, N. T., Lipkus, I. M., Skinner, C. S., Strigo, T. S. and Rimer, B. K. 2008. Intentions to maintain adherence to mammography. Journal of Women's Health, 17: 1133 - 1141.
28. Riet, J. van 't, Ruiter, R. A. C., Werrij, M. and De Vries, H. 2010. Investigating message-framing effects in the context of a tailored intervention promoting physical activity. Health Education Research, 25: 343 - 354.
29. Rimer, B. K., Kasper Keintz, M., Kessler, H. B., Engstrom, P. F. and Rosan, J. R. 1989. Why women resist screening mammography: Patient related barriers. Radiology, 89: 243 - 246.
30. Roll Integrity Unit. (2004). Measuring the accuracy of electoral rolls and testing the effectiveness of continuous roll update (RIU416-2004). Australian Electoral Commission, Canberra.
31. Salazar, M. K. and de Moor, C. 1995. An evaluation of mammography beliefs using a decision model. Health Education Quarterly, 22: 110 - 126.
32. Tanner-Smith, E. E. and Brown, T. N. 2010. Evaluating the health belief model: A critical review of studies predicting mammographic and pap screenings. Social Theory and Health, 8: 95 - 125.
33. Witte, K. and Allen, M. 2004. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior, 27: 591 - 615.