Abstract
Objectives
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in Scotland is 56%. This study examined whether psychological factors were associated with CRC screening uptake.
Design
Cross-sectional observational study.
Setting
This study used data from the Healthy AGeing In Scotland (HAGIS) pilot study, a study designed to be representative of Scottish adults aged 50 years and older.
Participants
908 (505 female) Scottish adults aged 50–80 years (mean age=65.85, SD=8.23), who took part in the HAGIS study (2016–2017).
Primary and secondary outcome measures Self-reported participation in CRC screening was the outcome measure. Logistic regression was used to test whether scores on measures of health literacy, cognitive ability, risk aversion, time preference (eg, present oriented or future oriented) and personality were associated with CRC screening when these psychological factors were entered individually and simultaneously in the same model.
Results
Controlling for age, age-squared, sex, living arrangement, and sex*living arrangement, a one-point increase in risk aversion (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.85) and present orientation (OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94) was associated with reduced odds of screening. Higher scores on health literacy (OR per one-point increase=1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.31), cognitive ability (OR per SD increase=1.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.81) and the intellect personality trait (OR per one-point increase=1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09) were associated with increased odds of screening. Higher risk aversion was the only psychological variable that was associated with CRC screening participation when all psychological variables were entered in the same model and remained associated with CRC screening when additionally adjusting for deprivation and education. A backward elimination model retained two psychological variables as correlates of CRC screening: risk aversion and cognitive ability.
Conclusion
Individuals who are more risk averse are less likely to participate in free, home CRC screening.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in Scotland is 56%. This study examined whether psychological factors were associated with CRC screening uptake.
Design
Cross-sectional observational study.
Setting
This study used data from the Healthy AGeing In Scotland (HAGIS) pilot study, a study designed to be representative of Scottish adults aged 50 years and older.
Participants
908 (505 female) Scottish adults aged 50–80 years (mean age=65.85, SD=8.23), who took part in the HAGIS study (2016–2017).
Primary and secondary outcome measures Self-reported participation in CRC screening was the outcome measure. Logistic regression was used to test whether scores on measures of health literacy, cognitive ability, risk aversion, time preference (eg, present oriented or future oriented) and personality were associated with CRC screening when these psychological factors were entered individually and simultaneously in the same model.
Results
Controlling for age, age-squared, sex, living arrangement, and sex*living arrangement, a one-point increase in risk aversion (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.85) and present orientation (OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94) was associated with reduced odds of screening. Higher scores on health literacy (OR per one-point increase=1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.31), cognitive ability (OR per SD increase=1.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.81) and the intellect personality trait (OR per one-point increase=1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09) were associated with increased odds of screening. Higher risk aversion was the only psychological variable that was associated with CRC screening participation when all psychological variables were entered in the same model and remained associated with CRC screening when additionally adjusting for deprivation and education. A backward elimination model retained two psychological variables as correlates of CRC screening: risk aversion and cognitive ability.
Conclusion
Individuals who are more risk averse are less likely to participate in free, home CRC screening.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | e042210 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | BMJ Open |
Volume | 12 |
Issue number | 2 |
Early online date | 1 Feb 2022 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2022 |