Factors Affecting Prostate Cancer Screening Behavior

Eun Nam Lee; Jin Hee Park; Sung Gum Kang; Seonyoung Yun; Kyung Mi Sin; Kyoung Mi Kim

doi:10.5388/aon.2015.15.4.256

Journal List > Asian Oncol Nurs > v.15(4) > 1081851

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Park, Kang, Yun, Sin, and Kim: Factors Affecting Prostate Cancer Screening Behavior

Original Article

Asian Oncology Nursing 2015; 15(4): 256-263.

Published online: 31 December 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5388/aon.2015.15.4.256

Factors Affecting Prostate Cancer Screening Behavior

Eun Nam Lee¹, Jin Hee Park¹, Sung Gum Kang², Seonyoung Yun³, Kyung Mi Sin⁴, Kyoung Mi Kim⁵

¹Department of Nursing, Dong-A University, Busan, Korea.

²Department of Nursing, Gimhae College, Gimhae, Korea.

³Department of Nursing, Youngsan University, Yangsan, Korea.

⁴Department of Nursing, Chunhae College of Health Sciences, Ulsan, Korea.

⁵Department of Nursing, Kosin University, Busan, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Park, Jin Hee. Department of Nursing, Dong-A University, 3 Dongdaeshin-dong, Seo-gu, Busan 49201, Korea. Tel: +82-51-240-2864, Fax: +82-51-240-2947, Ginny124@hotmail.com

Received 23 November 2015 Revised 19 December 2015 Accepted 23 December 2015

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study was to examine the factors affecting prostate cancer screening behavior in Korean men using the health belief model (HBM).

Methods

It was a descriptive cross-sectional survey. A total of 121 participants answered questionnaires which included general characteristics, knowledge, and HBM variables related to prostate cancer and prostate cancer screening tests.

Results

Only 18 participants (14.9%) had had a prostate cancer screening test before. Participants who had had a prostate cancer screening test were more likely to perceive lower health status (odds ratio: 0.61 [95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.93]), higher perceived sensitivity (odds ratio: 3.55 [95% confidence interval: 1.11, 11.36]), and higher self-efficacy (odds ratio: 5.77 [95% confidence interval: 1.51, 22.08]) than participants who had not had a test.

Conclusion

We recommend developing an educational program which can increase the level of perceived sensitivity and self-efficacy to involve themselves in prostate cancer screening test actively.

Keywords: Prostatic Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer, Men, Health Behavior

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Demographics and the Level of Knowledge, Health Belief, and Self-efficacy related to Prostate Cancer and Prostate Cancer Screening Behavior of Participants (N =121)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%)	M±SD	Range
Age (year)			55.4±8.0	40~75
Religion	Yes	102 (84.3)
Religion	No	19 (15.7)
Spouse	Yes	113 (93.4)
Spouse	No	8 (6.6)
Educational level	≤High school	56 (46.3)
Educational level	≥College	65 (53.7)
Occupation	Yes	94 (78.3)
Occupation	No	26 (21.7)
Monthly income (10,000 won)	<300	66 (55.0)
Monthly income (10,000 won)	≥300	54 (45.0)
PSA test	Yes	18 (14.9)
PSA test	No	103 (85.1)
Diagnosis for cancer	Yes	13 (10.7)
Diagnosis for cancer	No	108 (89.3)
Prostate cancer history of family	Yes	7 (5.8)
Prostate cancer history of family	No	114 (94.2)
Prostate cancer history of friends or colleague	Yes	16 (13.2)
Prostate cancer history of friends or colleague	No	105 (86.8)
Health education for prostate cancer	Yes	14 (11.6)
Health education for prostate cancer	No	107 (88.4)
Perceived health status			7.44±1.96	3~10
Knowledge			8.96±1.82	0~17
Health belief	Perceived sensitivity		2.32±0.78	1~5
	Perceived seriousness		3.07±0.66	1~5
	Perceived benefit		3.73±0.65	1~5
	Perceived barrier		2.86±0.53	1~5
Self-efficacy			2.94±0.74	1~5

PSA=Prostate specific antigen.

Table 2

Differences of Characteristics according to the Experience of PSA Test (N =121)

Characteristics	Categories	Yes (n=18)	No (n=103)	χ² or t	p
Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	χ² or t	p
Religion	Yes	14 (77.8)	88 (85.4)	0.68	.481
Religion	No	4 (22.2)	15 (14.6)	0.68	.481
Spouse	Yes	17 (94.4)	100 (97.1)	0.34	.563
Spouse	No	1 (5.6)	3 (2.9)	0.34	.563
Educational level	≤High school	8 (44.4)	48 (46.6)	0.03	.866
Educational level	≥College	10 (55.6)	55 (53.4)	0.03	.866
Occupation	Yes	14 (77.8)	80 (78.4)	0.01	.951
Occupation	No	4 (22.2)	22 (21.6)	0.01	.951
Monthly income (10,000 won)	<300	9 (52.9)	57 (55.3)	0.03	.854
Monthly income (10,000 won)	≥300	8 (47.1)	46 (44.7)	0.03	.854
Diagnosis for cancer	Yes	3 (16.7)	10 (9.7)	0.77	.379
Diagnosis for cancer	No	15 (83.3)	93 (90.3)	0.77	.379
Family history	Yes	4 (22.2)	3 (2.9)	10.48	.001
Family history	No	14 (77.8)	100 (97.1)	10.48	.001
Prostate cancer history of friends or colleague	Yes	7 (38.9)	9 (8.7)	12.14	<.001
Prostate cancer history of friends or colleague	No	11 (61.1)	94 (91.3)	12.14	<.001
Experience of prostate cancer health education	Yes	5 (27.8)	9 (8.7)	5.43	.020
Experience of prostate cancer health education	No	13 (72.2)	94 (91.3)	5.43	.020
Age (year)		59.6±7.0	54.7±7.9	2.39	.018
Perceived health status		6.06±1.92	7.67±1.88	- 3.25	.002
Knowledge		10.56±2.15	8.10±3.36	4.06	<.001
Health belief	Perceived sensitivity	2.94±0.84	2.22±0.73	3.70	<.001
	Perceived seriousness	3.21±0.66	3.05±0.65	.967	.335
	Perceived benefit	3.85±0.82	3.71±0.61	.837	.404
	Perceived barrier	2.70±0.65	2.89±0.50	- 1.39	.166
Self-efficacy		3.56±0.67	2.84±0.71	4.00	<.001

PSA=Prostate specific antigen.

Table 3

Predictors of Prostate Cancer Screening Behavior

Predictors	Multiple logistic regression
Predictors	OR	95% CI	p
Age (year)	1.07	0.95, 1.20	.305
Prostate cancer history of siblings or father (ref.=no)	1.23	0.05, 33.43	.902
Prostate cancer history of friends or colleague (ref.=no)	2.53	0.39, 16.33	.331
Health education for prostate cancer (ref.=no)	0.48	0.04, 5.74	.563
Perceived health status	0.61	0.39, 0.93	.023
Knowledge level about prostate cancer & screening test	1.20	0.93, 1.56	.163
Perceived sensitivity	3.55	1.11, 11.36	.033
Self-efficacy for early detection test for prostate cancer	5.77	1.51, 22.08	.011
- 2 Log likelihood	52.69
Cox & snell R square	.30
Nagelkerke R square	.53
χ² (p)	39.79 (<.001)

PSA=Prostate specific antigen.

Notes

This work was supported by the Dong-A University research fund.

References

1. Korea Central Cancer Registry Division. National cancer registry statistics (Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2011). Ministry of Health and Welfare;2013.

2. Jung K, Won Y, Kong H, Oh C, Lee DH, Lee JS. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2011. Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 46(2):109–123.

3. Han JH, Yoon SJ, Lee YG. Background and validity of the promotion of prostate-specific antigen based prostate cancer screening to national cancer screening program. Korean J Urol Oncol. 2010; 8(1):1–9.

4. Song SY, Kim SR, Ahn G, Choi HY. Pathologic characteristics of prostatic adenocarcinomas: a mapping analysis of Korean patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2003; 6(2):143–147.

5. Sirovich BE, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence? JAMA. 2003; 289(11):1414–1420.

6. Melia J, Moss S, Johns L. Rates of prostate-specific antigen testing in general practice in England and Wales in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients: a cross-sectional study. BJU Int. 2004; 94(1):51–56.

7. Collin SM, Martin RM, Metcalfe C, Gunnell D, Albertsen PC, Neal D, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality in the USA and UK in 1975-2004: an ecological study. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(5):445–452.

8. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13):1320–1328.

9. Park SK, Sakoda LC, Kang D, Chokkalingam AP, Lee E, Shin H, et al. Rising prostate cancer rates in South Korea. Prostate. 2006; 66(12):1285–1291.

10. Rosenstock IM. What research in motivation suggests for public health. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1997; 03. 50:295–302.

11. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons;2008.

12. Redding CA, Rossi JS, Rossi SR, Velicer WF, Proschaska JO. Health behavior models. Int Electron J Health Educ. 2000; 3(Special issue):180–193.

13. The Korean Urological Oncology Society. Clinical guidelines on prostate carcinoma 2004. Accessed December 13, 2012. http://www.kuos.or.kr./05/05.condition.asp.

14. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A. G^*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2):175–191.

15. Radosevich DM, Partin MR, Nugent S, Nelson D, Flood AB, Holtzman J, et al. Measuring patient knowledge of the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2004; 54(2):143–152.

16. Boehm S, Coleman-Burns P, Schlenk EA, Funnell MM, Parzuchowski J, Powell IJ. Prostate cancer in African American men: increasing knowledge and self-efficacy. J Community Health Nurs. 1995; 12(3):161–169.

17. Jacobs LA. Health beliefs of first-degree relatives of individuals with colorectal cancer and participation in health maintenance visits: a population-based survey. Cancer Nurs. 2002; 08. 25(4):251–265.

18. Champion VL. Revised susceptibility, benefits, and barriers scale for mammography screening. Res Nurs Health. 1999; 22(4):341–348.

19. Choi KS, Park JK. Epidemiologic Characteristics of Prostate Cancer Detection. Korean J Urol Oncol. 2009; 50(11):1054–1058.

20. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Study report for 5 items of cancer screening test to reach to all population in South Korea. Ministry of Health and Welfare;2004.

21. Park KH. Related Factors to Do Prostate Cancer Screening Test [master's thesis]. Seoul: Chung-Ang Univ;2009.

22. Lee HY, Jung Y. Older Korean American men's prostate cancer screening behavior: the prime role of culture. J Immigr Minor Health. 2013; 15(6):1030–1037.

23. Pierce R, Chadiha LA, Vargas A, Mosley M. Prostate cancer and psychosocial concerns in African American men: literature synthesis and recommendations. Health Soc Work. 2003; 11. 28(4):302–311.

24. Hannover W, Kopke D, Hannich HJ. Perceived barriers to prostate cancer screenings among middle-aged men in north-eastern Germany. Public Health Nurs. 2010; 11-12. 27(6):504–512.

25. Lehto RH, Song L, Stein KF, Coleman-Burns P. Factors influencing prostate cancer screening in African American men. West J Nurs Res. 2010; 10. 32(6):779–793.

26. Kim NS, Lee KE. Effecting factors on cancer preventive behaviors for middle aged man/woman. J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs. 2014; 21(1):29–38.

27. Kim MH, Choi SH. Effect of nursing intervention on the knowledge, health beliefs, self-efficacy and rescreening compliance of cervical cancer screening clients. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2007; 13(3):157–164.

28. Drake BF, Shelton RC, Gilligan T, Allen JD. A church-based intervention to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among African American men. J Natl Med Assoc. 2010; 03. 102(3):164–171.

TOOLS

Similar articles