Skip to main content

Table 2 The bivariate associations and the final multivariate models predicting change in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intention (v. consistent negative intention) a among study participants (sample n = 692, weighted sample = 1,004)

From: Changes in colorectal cancer screening intention among people aged 18–49 in the United States

 

Change in CRC screening Intentions

 

Consistent positive intentionb

New intentionc

Discontinued intentiond

 

Bivariate associations

Final Model

Bivariate associations

Final model

Bivariate associations

Final model

 

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

Intervention Status

      

Intervention (v. control)

1.38 (0.65, 2.92)

1.52 (0.73, 3.16)

1.31 (0.81, 2.12)

1.63 (1.03, 2.57)**

0.82 (0.25, 2.76)

0.91 (0.20, 4.05)

Socio-demographics

      

Age (SE)

1.03 (1.01, 1.06)**

1.04 (1.02, 1.07)**

1.02 (1.00, 1.05)*

1.04 (1.01, 1.07)**

1.02 (1.00, 1.05)*

1.02 (0.98, 1.06)

Male (v. female)

1.89 (1.05. 3.43)**

2.28 (1.06, 4.09)**

1.65 (0.58, 4.74)

2.05 (0.64, 6.61)

1.80 (0.39, 8.21)

1.90 (0.38, 9.45)

Race/ethnicity

      

Hispanic (v. White/Other)

0.83 (0.39, 1.79)

 

0.76 (0.29, 2.00)

 

1.30 (0.38, 4.48)

 

Black (v. White/Other)

0.70 (0.27, 1.77)

 

0.91 (0.34, 2.45)

 

0.57 (0.14, 2.32)

 

Below/At poverty line (v. above)

1.26 (0.77, 2.06)

 

1.38 (0.76, 2.52)

 

1.47 (0.73, 2.98)

 

Education

      

< high school diploma (HSD) (v. > HSD)

1.23 (0.85, 1.77)

 

1.30 (0.86, 1.98)

 

0.91 (0.40, 2.03)

 

HSD or equivalent (v. > HSD)

1.23 (0.72, 2.07)

 

1.50 (0.77, 2.93)

 

1.11 (0.37, 3.36)

 

Place of birth

      

US

1.51 (0.79, 2.86)

1.94 (1.06, 3.53)**

3.04 (1.84, 5.02)**

3.71 (2.21, 6.23)**

1.48 (0.58, 3.77)

 

Puerto Rico

1.63 (1.10, 2.42)**

1.54 (1.07, 2.21)**

2.10 (0.98, 4.49)*

1.99 (0.84, 4.68)

1.36, (0.58, 3.19)

 

Other

REF

REF

REF

REF

REF

 

English 1st language (Yes v. no)

1.38 (0.85, 2.24)

 

1.89 (1.09, 3.28)**

 

1.09 (0.53, 2.27)

 

Insurance status

      

None (v. Public + private)

1.04 (0.27, 3.92)

 

1.73 (0.34, 8.87)

 

0.87 (0.20, 3.88)

 

Public only (v. Public + private)

0.97 (0.35, 2.70)

 

2.25 (0.46, 10.90)

 

0.90 (0.28, 2.92)

 

Private only (v. Public + private)

1.21 (0.48, 3.06)

 

1.87 (0.45, 7.72)

 

0.78 (0.23, 2.68)

 

Contextual factors

      

Social cohesion (mean)

1.32 (0.94, 1.87)

 

1.30 (0.78, 2.17)

 

0.98 (0.47, 2.04)

 

# Role responsibilities (0-1 v. 2–3)

0.64 (0.41, 1.00)**

 

0.91 (0.45, 1.83)

 

0.47 (0.27, 0.84)**

0.49 (0.27, 0.90)**

Roles conflicts (yes v. no)e

1.21 (0.79, 1.87)

 

0.61 (0.30, 1.25)

 

1.86 (0.92, 3.72)*

 

Health care factors

      

Have regular MD or NPe (yes v. no)

1.05 (0.62, 1.75)

 

0.71 (0.43, 1.17)

 

0.69 (0.42, 1.14)

 

MDR/NP understands social context

      

0 (v. 3)

0.63 (0.40, 0.98)**

 

0.99 (0.54. 1.79)

 

0.98 (0.39, 2.47)

 

1 (v. 3)

0.88 (0.40, 1.90)

 

1.44 (0.29, 7.24)

 

1.62 (0.57, 4.62)

 

2 (v. 3)

1.08 (0.70, 1.65)

 

0.88 (0.46. 1.69)

 

0.61 (0.13, 2.78)

 

# times saw regular MD/NP last year

      

0 (v. 12+)

0.65 (0.27, 1.55)

 

1.30 (0.34, 4.95)

 

0.87 (0.12, 6.32)

 

1-3 (v. 12+)

0.93 (0.49, 1.78)

 

0.81 (0.26, 2.50)

 

1.11 (0.12, 10.16)

 

4 < 12 (v. 12+)

1.14 (0.59, 2.19)

 

0.94 (0.32, 2.76)

 

1.14 (0.11, 11.79)

 
  1. Notes: aFor all models “consistent negative intention [no screening intention at baseline and follow-up]” is the referent; bContinued positive intention (yes at baseline and follow-up); cNew screening intention (no at baseline , yes at follow-up); dDiscontinued intention (yes at baseline, no at follow-up); e OR = odds ratio; f NP = nurse practitioner; eNumber of role responsibilities is the number of roles (earning money to support the family; taking care of children, taking care of household) for which the participant had most or all the responsibility. *significant at p = .10; **significant at p = 0.05.