| Title |
Cognitive Mediators Linking Social Support Networks to Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, August 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-006-9068-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Keiko Honda, Marjorie Kagawa-Singer |
| Abstract |
This paper argues that normative considerations are more important than attitudinal factors in engaging colorectal cancer screening, and tests a model explaining how unique cultural expressions of social networks influence screening adherence. Structural equation modeling was used to understand colorectal cancer screening in a population-based sample of 341 Japanese Americans aged 50 and over. The model accounted for 25% of the variance in screening adherence. Adherence was most strongly associated with family/friend subjective norms about colorectal cancer screening use. Emotional family support, but not the size of the networks, was indirectly related to adherence via increased family/friend subjective norms, while emotional friend support was directly related to adherence. While usual source of care was directly associated with adherence, better provider-patient communication was directly and indirectly associated with adherence via increased perceived benefits. The findings of this study support strengthening informal support networks to enhance adherence among Japanese Americans at risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#12,853,669
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#687
of 1,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,233
of 65,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 65,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.