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":null,"pages":null},"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.
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.