Next Article in Journal
How Implicit Attitudes toward Vaccination Affect Vaccine Hesitancy and Behaviour: Developing and Validating the V-IRAP
Next Article in Special Issue
Early Gastric Cancer: Update on Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamic Interactive Model of Sport Motivation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 7
10.3390/ijerph19074203
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Screening Intention Prediction of Colorectal Cancer among Urban Chinese Based on the Protection Motivation Theory

by
Wenshuang Wei
1,
Miao Zhang
1,
Dan Zuo
1,
Qinmei Li
2,
Min Zhang
3,
Xinguang Chen
4,
Bin Yu
1 and
Qing Liu
1,*
1
School of Public Health, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China
2
Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Wuhan 430015, China
3
Institute of Cancer Prevention and Control, Wuhan 430079, China
4
Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(7), 4203; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074203
Submission received: 22 February 2022 / Revised: 30 March 2022 / Accepted: 30 March 2022 / Published: 1 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Lifestyle in Gastrointestinal Cancer: Prevention, Treatment and Survival)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Colorectal cancer poses a serious threat worldwide. Although early screening has been proved to be the most effective way to prevent and control colorectal cancer, the current situation of colorectal cancer screening remains not optimistic. The aim of this article is to apply the protection motivation theory (PMT) to examine the influencing factors on screening intention of colorectal cancer (CRC). This cross-sectional survey was launched in five communities in Wuhan, China. All the eligible urban Chinese were recruited and interviewed using paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The intention of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) was measured using six PMT subconstructs, including perceived risk, perceived severity, fear arousal, response efficacy, response cost, and self-efficacy. Data on sociodemographic variables and knowledge of CRC were also collected. The structural equation modeling (SEM) method was used for data analysis. Among all the 569 respondents, 83.66% expressed willingness to participate in CRCS. Data of the research fit the proposed SEM model well (Chi-square/df = 2.04, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.04). Two subconstructs of PMT (response efficacy and self-efficacy) and CRC knowledge were directly and positively associated with screening intention. Age, social status, medical history, physical activity, and CRC knowledge were indirectly related to the screening intention through at least one of the two PMT subconstructs (response efficacy and self-efficacy). The findings of this study suggest the significance of enhancing response efficacy and self-efficacy in motivating urban Chinese adults to participate in CRC screening. Knowledge of CRC is significantly associated with screening intention. This study can provide useful information for the formulation and improvement of colorectal cancer screening strategies and plans.

1. Introduction

In 2021, the World Health Organization released new data: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide and is expected to remain a major public health problem in the coming years. And colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer burden among both women and men, ranking third in morbidity and second in mortality around the world, causing 1.93 million new cases and almost 916 thousand deaths [1]. Studies from China have shown that the number of CRC has been increasing steadily over the past three decades, from 104.3 thousand cases in 1990 to 555 thousand cases in 2020 and from 81.1 thousand deaths in 1990 to 286 thousand deaths in 2020 [2,3]. Obviously, colorectal cancer is one of the biggest threats to human health, leading to huge social and economic burdens accompanied with a decline in quality of life.
Previous studies showed that CRC morbidity and mortality could be reduced via effective screening and timely treatment [4,5]. Although a range of clinical guidelines have been promoted to achieve prompt screening behaviors for average-risk populations, the uptake in CRC screening remains suboptimal in many countries [6]. The CRC screening rates in the UK and France were 52.0% and 34.3%, respectively [7], while the CRC screening uptake was much lower (27.78%) in Shanghai, China [8]. More seriously, a survey based on the urban cancer early diagnosis and treatment project showed that the screening compliance rate of colorectal cancer was 18.23% among the high-risk population in Hubei Province from 2018 to 2019 [9].
The Health Belief Model (HBM) provides an intuitive conceptual framework to explain preventive practices and has been largely applied to colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) [8,10]. However, the HBM is limited in assessing the deficient effects of severity and vulnerability. Another limitation of the HBM is that this theory is inadequate to offer a clear mechanism through which the HBM components are converted into actual behaviors [11]. Therefore, a more comprehensive and specified model is needed to fully understand preventive behaviors and satisfy greater experimental verification.
Protection motivation theory (PMT) is a comprehensive and systematic model, formulated and revised by Rogers and his colleagues [12]. According to PMT, protection motivation, indexed by behavioral intention, was a latent and reasonable predictor of health behaviors [13]. PMT consists of two different but closely connected cognitive processes: threat appraisal and coping appraisal. And these two processes are sequential; before taking preventive behaviors (coping appraisal) into account, individuals must first recognize and perceive the threat applied to them [12].
Threat appraisal process refers to residents’ perception of maladaptive behaviors or diseases, which contains three subconstructs: risk perception, severity perception, and fear arousal. Risk perception refers to one’s perception of the possibility of illness or adverse health behaviors; it is regarded as the basis of health behavior theories and goals for behavior intervention [14,15]. Severity perception refers to a person’s subjective judgement about the negative consequences induced by diseases or maladaptive behaviors [16]. Fear arousal refers to worries and concerns about being affected by a disease. It is well recognized that risk perception and severity perception may prompt respondents to adopt adaptive behaviors, while fear arousal may hinder the motivation of performing the response [17].
Coping appraisal process in PMT evaluates one individual’s capability to respond to and avert all the threatened danger, including response efficacy, response cost, and self-efficacy. Response efficacy evaluates the belief that one can avert the perceived threat/risk for cancer by performing prevention behaviors [18]. Response cost refers to all possible costs from adopting preventive measures or behaviors, including physical, psychological, and financial costs [19]. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s expected capability in successfully performing the adaptive response. Evidence from previous studies demonstrated that self-efficacy is an important component of various health behavior theories, influencing motivational, affective, and cognitive processes [20].
Holding that whether an individual produces healthy behavior is influenced by both external environmental factors and intrapersonal factors, PMT has been a common tool to explore motivation and behaviors of individuals in health-related fields and is widely used to predict screening outcomes in diverse tumors, including skin cancer and cervical cancer [21,22].
In the past two decades, the number of colorectal cancer patients has been increasing rapidly, especially in urban areas. As for the poor screening compliance rates, previous literature revealed a lot of barriers, including religion, lack of knowledge and awareness, misunderstanding about the screening tests, etc. [19,23]. However, it remains unclear how sociodemographic factors exert effects on screening intention based on PMT among the asymptomatic urban population. Thus, it is of great significance to carry out a survey among urban Chinese to investigate the CRC intention under the guidance of PMT.
In this study, we aimed to: (1) assess knowledge of CRC and its screening among urban Chinese; (2) identify the possible influencing factors on CRC screening intention of urban Chinese; and (3) investigate the relationship between PMT and colorectal cancer screening intention. This study can give powerful PMT-based evidence to the local government and Health Committee for the development and improvement of colorectal cancer screening strategies among urban Chinese.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This cross-sectional study was conducted within the framework of a cancer screening program in urban China (CanSPUC). As a national cancer screening program, CanSPUC has been in progress in urban China since it was first launched in 2012. The objective of CanSPUC is to screen five main types of cancer: lung cancer free, upper gastrointestinal cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer. Detailed information regarding the methodology of CanSPUC has been described in previous studies [24,25].

2.2. Study Participants

Briefly, urban residents aged 40 to 74 first received epidemiological questionnaires and high-risk assessments of the five types of cancer. High-risk assessment was based on the Harvard Risk Index and was appropriately adjusted to the characteristics of Chinese [24,26]. Then individuals at high risk for those five types of cancer were screened free of charge. This study consisted of a survey on colorectal cancer screening intention as well as a screening of a high-risk population at baseline. Participants were recruited from five selected communities via convenience sampling method. WeChat, a widely used social application in China, was employed to call on local residents to participate in this survey. Specifically, the staff of the Community Health Center created separated WeChat groups, briefly introduced the purpose of CanSPUC and this study, and encouraged the groups to participate in the study. Thus, eligible participates from the five selected communities were identified and recruited following the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved protocol.
The inclusion criteria for participation were: (a) 40–74 years old, (b) no clinical diagnosis of CRC, including precancerous lesions, (c) willing to participate in the study and having good understanding power and ability of expression, and (d) no severe organ dysfunction. Residents aged 40–74 years old were selected because of the high CRC risk during this age range [27,28]. Those residents who were diagnosed with CRC were excluded. A total of 598 questionnaires were gathered. Among these questionnaires, 29 with missing data on key demographic variables and CRC knowledge were excluded, yielding a final sample of 569.

2.3. Data Collection

The data collection began in September 2020 and lasted for a month via in-person interviews, utilizing paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The questionnaire for data collection was pilot-tested to ensure feasibility and acceptability. Questionnaires were composed of demographic and other factors, knowledge of CRC, and PMT-based scale of CRC. Demographic and other factors were described in detail in the next part, and items about knowledge of CRC and the PMT-based scale of CRC were shown in Appendix A. It took 15–20 min for a typical respondent to complete the survey. Data collectors were second-year public health graduate students from Wuhan University. They received a three-day training session before participating in the data collection. The trained data collectors went to the Community Health Service Centers of the five selected communities to implement the data collection. Completed questionnaires were checked for completeness and accuracy, and double-entry and routine logic checks were performed to detect errors. Disagreements during the data entry were settled by reviewing the original questionnaire.

2.4. Variables and Measurements

2.4.1. Intention for CRC Screening

Intention for CRC screening was measured based on participants responses to the following question: “Are you willing to take up CRC screening in the future?” A 5-point Likert-scale was used, with 1 = “very much unwilling” and 5 = “very much willing.” This variable was also dichotomized for analysis: Participants were coded as having no intention if they responded 3 (neutral) or less; otherwise, they were coded as having intention.

2.4.2. Knowledge of CRC

With reference to the previous study [24,29], the CRC Knowledge Scale consisting of 21 items with three subconstructs was developed. (1) the knowledge of risk factors contained 9 items, and a typical item was: “Do you believe the following items are risk factors of CRC or not?” (2) The knowledge of symptoms contained 8 items, and a typical item was: “To your knowledge, which of the following are CRC symptoms?” (3) The screening knowledge contained 4 items, and a typical item was: “Screening is needed for people with bloody stool or diarrhea alternating with constipation.” Participants received one score for a correct answer, with higher scores indicating more knowledge.

2.4.3. PMT-Based Scale of CRC

Combined with the previous research [30], which was a pilot study and expert consultation method, we designed a PMT-based Scale of CRC and revised it extensively to ensure good reliability and validity. Reliability and validity tests were conducted in the previous article [31]. In detail, the Cronbach’s α for the overall scale was 0.763 and ranged from 0.584 to 0.771 for each dimension. The discrimination validity of the scale was examined via correlation coefficients: The correlation coefficients between items within the six dimensions ranged from 0.089 to 0.534, and the correlation coefficients between the dimensions and the total scale ranged from 0.165 to 0.586. The indicators of confirmatory factor analysis were better than the standard values, indicating a good construction validity of the scale.
The PMT-based scale of CRC is composed of two PMT pathways: the threat appraisal and the coping appraisal. The threat appraisal consisted of 3 subconstructs: risk perception (2 items), severity perception (2 items), and fear arousal (2 items). The risk perception referred to one’s assessment of the likelihood of suffering from CRC (Cronbach alpha = 0.584); the severity perception referred to fear of the consequences from CRC (Cronbach alpha = 0.722); and the fear arousal referred to the assessment of worry of being affected by CRC (Cronbach alpha = 0.614). All items were assessed using a 5-point Likert-scale from 1 = “absolutely not” to 5 = absolutely yes.
The coping appraisal consisted of another 3 subconstructs: response efficacy (3 items), response cost (3 items), and self-efficacy (4 items). Response efficacy referred to the judgement about the role of planned colorectal cancer screening in its early detection and the preferable following treatment (Cronbach alpha = 0.737). Response cost referred to the likely economic or social costs of curing or improving CRC (Cronbach alpha = 0.712). Self-efficacy indicated whether participants have enough confidence to adopt regular CRC screening (Cronbach alpha = 0.771). All items were assessed with a 5-point Likert-scale from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree.”

2.4.4. Demographic and Other Factors

Demographic variables were: age (in years), occupation (administrative/technician, trader/service staff, peasant, housework/no work), education (primary or below, secondary, college or above), social status (created based on occupation and education), regular physical activity (yes/no), lower digestive tract lesions (yes/no), family history of cancer (yes/no). Medical history was formed by the combination of lower digestive tract lesions and family history of cancer. Regular physical activity referred to more than 3 times a week for more than 30 min each time.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, standard deviation (SD), proportion, and rate) were used to describe the study sample and the distribution of key variables. The chi-square test and Student’s t-test were performed to compare differences in factors between respondents with and without screening intention. Structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was used to examine PMT-based models linking influential factors with screening intention. Data-model fit was assessed using multiple criteria, including GFI (>0.90), AGFI (>0.90), CFI (>0.90), IFI (>0.90), RMSEA (<0.08), and chi-square/df ratio (<3.0). p < 0.05 (two-sided) was used for statistical inference. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 and Analysis of Moment Structures (Amos) version 21.0 for Windows (Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics

Table 1 summarizes the basic characteristics for the study sample (n = 569). The average age of the total study population was 59.05 (SD = 8.54) years old. The male to female ratio was 1:1.03. Of the total sample, 10.02% were farmers and 86.11% had secondary or more education. Approximately 70% (69.07%) of the total population reported having regular physical activity. Among all the subjects, those with lower digestive tract lesions and a family history of cancer accounted for 12.65% and 38.31%, respectively. 83.66% of all participates expressed willingness to participate in CRCS. There were no significant differences on screening intention among different characteristics groups (p > 0.05).

3.2. Knowledge of CRC

Table 2 exhibits the knowledge scores of CRC, containing risk factors, symptoms, and screening. The results from the Student’s t-test revealed that people with screening intention had higher scores about CRC knowledge compared with those participates without intention (mean = 14.16, SD = 4.56 vs. Mean = 12.43, SD = 5.67, p = 0.001). Moreover, the comparisons of each subscale between the two groups (with and without screening intention) showed that those respondents who had screening intention got higher scores than those without screening intention. The typical items regarding knowledge of CRC risk factors and symptoms were “smoking frequently” (62.18% vs. 44.09%, p = 0.001) and “change in bowel habits” (77.10% vs. 59.14%, p < 0.001).

3.3. Correlation between CRC Screening Intention, PMT Subconstructs, and CRC Knowledge

Table 3 presents the results from Pearson correlation analysis. Screening intention X1 was significantly related to X8, the CRC knowledge score (r = 0.24, p < 0.01), and five PMT subconstructs, particularly X7, the subconstruct of self-efficacy (r = 0.52, p < 0.01). In addition, CRC knowledge was significantly associated with four of the six PMT subconstructs except risk perception and severity perception. Three subconstructs of PMT (response efficacy X5, response cost X6, and self-efficacy X7) were all significantly associated with subdomains of the CRC knowledge scale (knowledge of CRC risk factors X9, knowledge of CRC symptoms X10, knowledge of CRC screening X11).

3.4. Analysis of Structure Equation Model

All data fit the proposed structural equation models quite well, with GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.04, and chi−square/df = 2.04. Results from the modeling are presented in Figure 1. First, of the six PMT constructs, two (self-efficacy and response efficacy) were significantly associated with CRC screening intention. The self-efficacy measures the perceived ability to take part in CRC screening, while the response efficacy measures the perceived effectiveness of screening in CRC prevention and treatment.
All the four external factors (social status, medical history, physical activity, and CRC knowledge) were significantly associated with the PMT subconstruct of self-efficacy, suggesting the role of these factors in promoting CRC screening through self-efficacy. In addition, age was positively associated with self-efficacy and CRC knowledge was directly and positively associated with the intention for CRC screening.
Of the four external factors, three (social status, medical history, and CRC knowledge) were associated with response efficacy, another PMT subconstruct that was significantly associated with CRC screening intention. In other words, these factors can promote screening intention by increasing the perceived effectiveness of screening for CRC prevention and treatment.

4. Discussion

In this current study, a multivariate approach-SEM was utilized to explore relationships between colorectal cancer screening intention and the two pathways of PMT (threat appraisal process and coping appraisal process). To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess colorectal cancer screening intention by employing theoretical framework PMT among urban Chinese. The findings of this study enable us to add new evidence to advance colorectal cancer research around the world, there being currently millions of colorectal cancer patients. The findings can strengthen the theoretical basis of the underlying mechanisms regarding urban Chinese screening intention and behaviors. All these data can promote the development of behavioral theory–based programs and increase CRC screening rates.
Results from SEM indicated the good fit of the whole model, which meant that PMT was a good tool to explore the relationships between sociodemographic factors and screening intention. Consistent with the findings of other researchers, not all constructs of PMT were equally strong in predicting health-related behaviors [21,32,33]. Data from this study indicated that the two PMT variables (response efficacy and self-efficacy) had significant associations with CRC screening intention, demonstrating a stronger impact on the perception of coping appraisal than on the perception of threat appraisal [34].
Notably, findings of this research suggested that self-efficacy was the most powerful predictor of the six subconstructs of PMT, similar to research findings of other investigators [32,35,36]. This positive connection showed that those individuals with greater perceptions of self-efficacy tended to overcome more obstacles, and had much more confidence to participate in CRC screening [37,38]. Hence, it is necessary to emphasize self-efficacy when designing and carrying out various health education interventions to further improve screening uptake and mitigate the threat of CRC [39,40].
As indicated by the results of previous surveys and the present study, response efficacy should also be considered in an effective screening program of colorectal cancer, acting as a promoting factor for screening willingness and behaviors [41,42]. Participants perceiving higher response efficacy were more likely to believe in the benefits of CRCS and have stronger intention of CRCS, while low response efficacy was reported to be associated with consistent refusal of screening participation [43,44]. This finding was important for urban Chinese because they lacked adequate education about CRC and enough perception of effectiveness regarding screening [45].
Another noteworthy discovery of this study facilitates effective implementation of PMT-based screening policies and prevention activities. Results from pathway analysis suggested that knowledge of CRC had a positive relationship with the scores of screening intention both in direct and indirect pathways. Likewise, published literature studies revealed that the respondents who got higher scores in knowledge were more likely to participate in CRC screening [46,47]. Those who had deficient knowledge of CRC risk factors, clinical symptoms, and detection would be discouraged from attending screening. So, implementation of educational interventions on the part of participants and staff of the primary healthcare system for removing barriers to CRC knowledge was quite essential, as it has already been proved to be a successful facilitator of CRC screening [48].
Findings from this survey reinforce the importance of focusing on the key social demographic and other factors. Age, physical activity, social status (education and occupation), and medical history (lower digestive tract lesions and family history of cancer) were found to be correlated to the screening intention mediated through at least one of the two PMT subconstructs (response efficacy and self-efficacy). Previous studies have shown that people with a personal history of colorectal disease were more likely to undergo CRC screening, whilst the uptake of screening was lower among older residents and those of lower socioeconomic status [49,50]. Individuals of higher social status and regular physical activity tend to pay more attention to their health and hold a positive attitude to CRCS. Therefore, targeted educational campaigns and screening programs based on PMT should be designed and established, taking the above factors into account.
Although this study found that only two subconstructs of PMT were significantly related to screening intention, it was not meant to imply that those subconstructs with no statistical significance made no contributions. The previous reports found that risk perception and severity perception were influencing factors of CRC screening [51,52]. Moreover, in this model, the total variance of the outcome variable was only partially explained, suggesting that other possible influencing factors were not included and further studies were needed.
Nevertheless, some limitations of this survey need to be noted. Firstly, the generalization of the results from this study should be considered with caution given the possible sampling selection bias, since the study sample was obtained from five communities in one city of central China via convenience sampling and the sample size was small. Secondly, due to the inherent deficiency of cross-sectional design, the causal relationship between screening intention and other factors can’t be warranted. Therefore, multi-center cohort studies with large samples will be needed in the future to produce stronger evidence. Third, in view of possible reporting bias due to time constraints, the question about screening intention could be further refined in future studies, for example, “Do you plan to have a CRC screening in the next three (or five) years?”

5. Conclusions

Despite these limitations, this is the first study to assess colorectal cancer screening intention among urban Chinese based on PMT. Moreover, the results of the study offer new data supporting the implementation of effective theory-based cognitive behavioral prevention interventions to enhance willingness to receive colorectal cancer screening. Most importantly, the success of this survey indicates that the PMT developed in the United States could also be used as a good tool to investigate willingness of colorectal cancer screening among urban residents in other developing countries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.L. (Qing Liu); methodology, Q.L. (Qing Liu) and X.C.; software, W.W. and M.Z. (Miao Zhang); validation, W.W. and M.Z. (Miao Zhang); formal analysis, W.W. and Q.L. (Qinmei Li); investigation, W.W. and M.Z. (Miao Zhang); resources, M.Z. (Miao Zhang), M.Z. (Min Zhang) and D.Z.; data curation, W.W. and M.Z. (Miao Zhang); writing—original draft preparation, W.W. and Q.L. (Qinmei Li); writing—review and editing, Q.L. (Qing Liu), X.C. and B.Y.; visualization, W.W. and M.Z. (Miao Zhang); supervision, D.Z.; project administration, M.Z. (Min Zhang) and Q.L. (Qing Liu). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Approval of our survey was acquired from the Institution Review Board of Wuhan University (IRB#:0024/2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available contacting corresponding Author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all those who supported this study, including graduate students from the School of Public Health of Wuhan University and community workers and staff in charge of the urban cancer early diagnosis and treatment project in Wuhan, Hubei Province.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Items of the 21-item for CRC knowledge questionnaire.
Table A1. Items of the 21-item for CRC knowledge questionnaire.
Items by Subconstructs
Knowledge of CRC risk factors
Q1. Older age.
Q2. Family cancer history.
Q3. Low vegetables fruits intake
Q4. Frequent high-fat food intake.
Q5. Frequent meat intake.
Q6. Obesity.
Q7. Lack of physical activity.
Q8. Eating fried food frequently.
Q9. Smoking frequently.
Knowledge of CRC symptoms
Q10. Blood in stool.
Q11. Mucus in stool.
Q12. Change in bowel habits.
Q13. Diarrhea or constipation.
Q14. Abdominal and anal pain.
Q15. Vomit.
Q16. Anemia.
Q17. Weight loss.
Knowledge of CRC screening
Q18. No need to re-screen if normal from a previous screen.
Q19. Screening is needed for people with bloody stool or diarrhea alternating with constipation
Q20. People with family history of colorectal polyps or CRC must screen.
Q21. CRC screening tests include fecal occult blood tests and colonoscopy.
Table
Table A2. Items of the 16-item colorectal cancer PMT scale.
Table A2. Items of the 16-item colorectal cancer PMT scale.
Items by Subconstructs
Risk perception
Q1. I am more prone to colorectal cancer than others.
Q2. I have been reminded by someone to be cautious of getting colorectal cancer.
Severity perception
Q3. Probability of death is high after one is diagnosed with colorectal cancer.
Q4. A person who gets colorectal cancer is hard to be cured.
Fear arousal
Q5. I don’t want to undergo colonoscopy for fear of getting colorectal cancer.
Q6. I’m afraid to talk to someone else about colorectal cancer.
Response efficacy
Q7. Colorectal cancer can be examined early via doing colonoscopy.
Q8. Through colonoscopy, I can find out if it is colorectal cancer.
Q9. If one would like to cure colorectal cancer, it can’t be done without colonoscopy.
Response cost
Q10. Going to a hospital for colonoscopy wastes a lot of time.
Q11. It takes a long way to a hospital for colonoscopy.
Q12. I felt very embarrassed to go to the hospital for colonoscopy.
Self-efficacy
Q13. Colonoscopy is easy to accept for me.
Q14. I have sufficient time to go to a hospital for colonoscopy.
Q15. Even though other people say colonoscopy is not necessary, I will go for it myself.
Q16. Even though colonoscopy costs me money, I will do it.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Cancer. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer (accessed on 3 February 2022).
  2. Zhang, L.; Cao, F.; Zhang, G.; Shi, L.; Chen, S.; Zhang, Z.; Zhi, W.; Ma, T. Trends in and predictions of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in China from 1990 to 2025. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cao, W.; Chen, H.D.; Yu, Y.W.; Li, N.; Chen, W.Q. Changing profiles of cancer burden worldwide and in China: A secondary analysis of the global cancer statistics 2020. Chin. Med. J. 2021, 134, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bretthauer, M. Colorectal cancer screening. J. Intern. Med. 2011, 270, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Goss, P.E.; Lee, B.L.; Badovinac-Crnjevic, T.; Strasser-Weippl, K.; Chavarri-Guerra, Y.; St Louis, J.; Villarreal-Garza, C.; Unger-Saldaña, K.; Ferreyra, M.; Debiasi, M.; et al. Planning cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 391–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lau, J.; Lim, T.Z.; Jianlin Wong, G.; Tan, K.K. The health belief model and colorectal cancer screening in the general population: A systematic review. Prev. Med. Rep. 2020, 20, 101223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Navarro, M.; Nicolas, A.; Ferrandez, A.; Lanas, A. Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: An update. World J. Gastroenterol. 2017, 23, 3632–3642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. He, L.; Gao, S.; Tao, S.; Li, W.; Du, J.; Ji, Y.; Wang, Y. Factors associated with colonoscopy compliance based on health belief model in a community-based colorectal cancer screening program Shanghai, China. Int. Q Community Health Educ. 2020, 41, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Tuo, J.; Zhang, X.; He, X.; Jiang, W.; Feng, J.; Jin, X.; Zhang, M.; Wei, S. Analysis of the screening results of the urban cancer early diagnosis and treatment project in Hubei province from 2018 to 2019. J. Pract. Oncol. 2021, 35, 297–301. [Google Scholar]
  10. Leung, D.Y.; Wong, E.M.; Chan, C.W. Determinants of participation in colorectal cancer screening among community-dwelling Chinese older people: Testing a comprehensive model using a descriptive correlational study. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2016, 21, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Prentice-Dunn, S.; Rogers, R.W. Protection motivation theory and preventive health: Beyond the health belief model. Health Educ. Res. 1986, 1, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Maddux, J.E.; Rogers, R.W. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 19, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Henson, S.; Masakure, O.; Cranfield, J. The propensity for consumers to offset health risks through the use of functional foods and nutraceuticals: The case of lycopene. Food Qual. Prefer. 2008, 19, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, C.; O’Neill, S.M.; Rothrock, N.; Gramling, R.; Sen, A.; Acheson, L.S.; Rubinstein, W.S.; Nease, D.E., Jr.; Ruffin, M.T.T. Comparison of risk perceptions and beliefs across common chronic diseases. Prev. Med. 2009, 48, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Emanuel, A.S.; Kiviniemi, M.T.; Howell, J.L.; Hay, J.L.; Waters, E.A.; Orom, H.; Shepperd, J.A. Avoiding cancer risk information. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 147, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Chen, X.; Orom, H.; Kiviniemi, M.T.; Waters, E.A.; Schofield, E.; Li, Y.; Hay, J.L. Cultural worldviews and perceived risk of colon cancer and diabetes. Health Risk Soc. 2020, 22, 324–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bui, L.; Mullan, B.; McCaffery, K. Protection motivation theory and physical activity in the general population: A systematic literature review. Psychol. Health Med. 2013, 18, 522–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wong, N. Investigating the effects of cancer risk and efficacy perceptions on cancer prevention adherence and intentions. Health Commun. 2009, 24, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Katz, M.L.; Heaner, S.; Reiter, P.; van Putten, J.; Murray, L.; McDougle, L.; Cegala, D.J.; Post, D.; David, P.; Slater, M.; et al. Development of an educational video to improve patient knowledge and communication with their healthcare providers about colorectal cancer screening. Am. J. Health Educ. 2009, 40, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. West, R.; Godinho, C.A.; Bohlen, L.C.; Carey, R.N.; Hastings, J.; Lefevre, C.E.; Michie, S. Development of a formal system for representing behaviour-change theories. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019, 3, 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bai, Y.; Liu, Q.; Chen, X.; Gao, Y.; Gong, H.; Tan, X.; Zhang, M.; Tuo, J.; Zhang, Y.; Xiang, Q.; et al. Protection motivation theory in predicting intention to receive cervical cancer screening in rural Chinese women. Psychooncology 2018, 27, 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Roozbahani, N.; Kaviani, A.H.; Khorsandi, M. Path analysis of skin cancer preventive behavior among the rural women based on protection motivation theory. BMC Womens Health 2020, 20, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. García, M.; Borràs, J.M.; Milà, N.; Espinàs, J.A.; Binefa, G.; Fernández, E.; Farré, A.; Pla, M.; Cardona, A.; Moreno, V. Factors associated with initial participation in a population-based screening for colorectal cancer in Catalonia, Spain: A mixed-methods study. Prev. Med. 2011, 52, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, H.; Li, N.; Ren, J.; Feng, X.; Lyu, Z.; Wei, L.; Li, X.; Guo, L.; Zheng, Z.; Zou, S.; et al. Participation and yield of a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in China. Gut 2019, 68, 1450–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Guo, L.W.; Lyu, Z.Y.; Meng, Q.C.; Zheng, L.Y.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Y.; Xu, H.F.; Kang, R.H.; Zhang, L.Y.; Cao, X.Q.; et al. Construction and validation of a lung cancer risk prediction model for non-smokers in China. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 766939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Guo, L.; Zhang, S.; Liu, S.; Zheng, L.; Chen, Q.; Cao, X.; Sun, X.; Qiao, Y.; Zhang, J. Determinants of participation and detection rate of upper gastrointestinal cancer from population-based screening program in China. Cancer Med. 2019, 8, 7098–7107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Corley, D.A.; Jensen, C.D.; Marks, A.R.; Zhao, W.K.; de Boer, J.; Levin, T.R.; Doubeni, C.; Fireman, B.H.; Quesenberry, C.P. Variation of adenoma prevalence by age, sex, race, and colon location in a large population: Implications for screening and quality programs. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013, 11, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. DeSantis, C.E.; Miller, K.D.; Dale, W.; Mohile, S.G.; Cohen, H.J.; Leach, C.R.; Goding Sauer, A.; Jemal, A.; Siegel, R.L. Cancer statistics for adults aged 85 years and older, 2019. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2019, 69, 452–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Bai, Y.; Wong, C.L.; Peng, X.; So, W.K.W. Colonoscopy screening behaviour and associated factors amongst first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer in China: Testing the health belief model using a cross-sectional design. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Chamroonsawasdi, K.; Chottanapund, S.; Tunyasitthisundhorn, P.; Phokaewsuksa, N.; Ruksujarit, T.; Phasuksathaporn, P. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess knowledge, threat and coping appraisal, and intention to practice healthy behaviors related to non-communicable diseases in the Thai population. Behav. Sci. 2017, 7, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wei, W.; Li, Q.; Zhang, M.; Tuo, J.; Tan, X.; Liu, Q.; Zuo, D. Construction of colorectal cancer screening questionnaire based on protection motivation theory and its validity and reliability study. Nurs J. Chin. PLA 2021, 38, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  32. Xiao, H.; Li, S.; Chen, X.; Yu, B.; Gao, M.; Yan, H.; Okafor, C.N. Protection motivation theory in predicting intention to engage in protective behaviors against schistosomiasis among middle school students in rural China. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e3246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ansari-Moghaddam, A.; Seraji, M.; Sharafi, Z.; Mohammadi, M.; Okati-Aliabad, H. The protection motivation theory for predict intention of COVID-19 vaccination in Iran: A structural equation modeling approach. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gong, J.; Stanton, B.; Lunn, S.; Deveaux, L.; Li, X.; Marshall, S.; Brathwaite, N.V.; Cottrell, L.; Harris, C.; Chen, X. Effects through 24 months of an HIV/AIDS prevention intervention program based on protection motivation theory among preadolescents in the Bahamas. Pediatrics 2009, 123, e917–e928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Laorujisawat, M.; Wattanaburanon, A.; Abdullakasim, P.; Maharachpong, N. Protection motivation theory and rabies protective behaviors among school students in Chonburi Province, Thailand. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 2021, 54, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sadeghi, R.; Mazloomy Mahmoodabad, S.S.; Fallahzadeh, H.; Rezaeian, M.; Bidaki, R.; Khanjani, N. Predictive factors for preventing hookah smoking and health promotion among young people based on the protection motivation theory. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2019, 8, 169. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Christou, A.; Thompson, S.C. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intention among indigenous western Australians. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Shokar, N.K.; Salinas, J.; Dwivedi, A. Mediators of screening uptake in a colorectal cancer screening intervention among Hispanics. BMC Cancer 2022, 22, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ramazani, A.A.; Norozi, E.; AmirabadiZadeh, H.; Ehteshampour, A.R.; Salehiniya, H. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in Southern Khorasan (Iran). J. Gastrointest. Cancer 2021, 52, 187–191. [Google Scholar]
  40. Besharati, F.; Karimi-Shahanjarini, A.; Hazavehie, S.M.M.; Bashirian, S.; Faradmal, J. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening intention among Iranian adults: An application of the preventive health model. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2018, 59, e159–e166. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tiro, J.A.; Vernon, S.W.; Hyslop, T.; Myers, R.E. Factorial validity and invariance of a survey measuring psychosocial correlates of colorectal cancer screening among African Americans and Caucasians. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2005, 14, 2855–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Myers, R.E.; Sifri, R.; Hyslop, T.; Rosenthal, M.; Vernon, S.W.; Cocroft, J.; Wolf, T.; Andrel, J.; Wender, R. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2007, 110, 2083–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Salimzadeh, H.; Eftekhar, H.; Delavari, A.; Malekzadeh, R. Psycho-social determinants of colorectal cancer screening in Iran. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 5, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Duncan, A.; Turnbull, D.; Wilson, C.; Osborne, J.M.; Cole, S.R.; Flight, I.; Young, G.P. Behavioural and demographic predictors of adherence to three consecutive faecal occult blood test screening opportunities: A population study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Issa, I.A.; Noureddine, M. Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options. World J. Gastroenterol. 2017, 23, 5086–5096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wong, G.C.Y.; Lee, K.Y.; Lam, K.F.; Fan, S.Y.S. Community-based survey of knowledge of, attitudes to and practice of colorectal cancer screening in Hong Kong. J. Dig. Dis. 2017, 18, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Rogers, C.R.; Obidike, O.J.; Wallington, S.F.; Hussein, M.; Mahamed, Z.A.; Sampson, J. A qualitative study of barriers and enablers associated with colorectal cancer screening among somali men in Minnesota. Ethn. Health 2021, 26, 168–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Unger-Saldaña, K.; Saldaña-Tellez, M.; Potter, M.B.; Van Loon, K.; Allen-Leigh, B.; Lajous, M. Barriers and facilitators for colorectal cancer screening in a low-income urban community in Mexico City. Implement. Sci. Commun. 2020, 1, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Huang, R.L.; Liu, Q.; Wang, Y.X.; Zou, J.Y.; Hu, L.F.; Wang, W.; Huang, Y.H.; Wang, Y.Z.; Zeng, B.; Zeng, X.; et al. Awareness, attitude and barriers of colorectal cancer screening among high-risk populations in China: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e045168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Martini, A.; Javanparast, S.; Ward, P.R.; Baratiny, G.; Gill, T.; Cole, S.; Tsourtos, G.; Aylward, P.; Jiwa, M.; Misan, G.; et al. Colorectal cancer screening in rural and remote areas: Analysis of the national bowel cancer screening program data for South Australia. Rural Remote Health 2011, 11, 1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Huang, J.; Choi, P.; Pang, T.W.Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Ding, H.; Jin, Y.; Zheng, Z.J.; Wong, M.C.S. Factors associated with participation in colorectal cancer screening: A population-based study of 7200 individuals. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2021, 30, e13369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Allen, C.; Waters, E.A.; Hamilton, J.G.; Vu, M.; Gabriel, J.; Roberts, M.C. Multifactorial causal beliefs and colorectal cancer screening: A structural equation modeling investigation. J. Health Psychol. 2021, 13591053211037737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 04203 g001 550
Figure 1. A structure equation modeling factors influencing screening intention. Note: A solid line indicates that the relationship is statistically significant (p < 0.05), and a dashed line indicates that the relationship had no statistical significance (p > 0.05). The data−model fit index: GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.04, Chi−square/df = 2.04.
Figure 1. A structure equation modeling factors influencing screening intention. Note: A solid line indicates that the relationship is statistically significant (p < 0.05), and a dashed line indicates that the relationship had no statistical significance (p > 0.05). The data−model fit index: GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.04, Chi−square/df = 2.04.
Ijerph 19 04203 g001
Table
Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the study population.
Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the study population.
VariableScreening IntentionTotal (%)p Value
YesNo
Sample size, N (%)476 (83.66)93 (16.34)569 (100.00)
Age in years, n (%) 0.275
40–4978 (16.39)19 (20.43)97 (17.05)
50–59135 (28.36)31 (33.33)166 (29.17)
60–74263 (55.25)43 (46.24)306 (53.78)
Mean (SD)59.33 (8.53)57.61 (8.54)59.05 (8.54)0.730
Social status
Occupation, n (%) 0.148
Administrative/technician182 (38.24)33 (35.48)215 (37.79)
Trader/service staff234 (49.16)41 (44.09)275 (48.33)
Peasant45 (9.45)12 (12.90)57 (10.02)
Housework/No work15(3.15)7 (7.53)22 (3.87)
Educational level, n (%) 0.662
Primary or below65 (13.66)14 (15.05)79 (13.88)
Secondary266 (55.88)55 (59.14)321 (56.41)
College or above145 (30.46)24 (25.81)169 (29.70)
Regular physical activity, n (%) 0.126
Yes335 (70.38)58 (62.37)393 (69.07)
No141 (29.62)35 (37.63)176 (30.93)
Medical history
Lower digestive tract lesions, n (%) 0.674
Yes59 (12.39)13 (13.98)72 (12.65)
No417 (87.61)80 (86.02)497 (87.35)
Family history of cancer, n (%) 0.280
Yes187 (39.29)31 (33.33)218 (38.31)
No289 (60.71)62 (66.67)351 (61.69)
Note: SD was standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Comparisons of knowledge of CRC among urban residents with and without colorectal cancer screening intention.
Table 2. Comparisons of knowledge of CRC among urban residents with and without colorectal cancer screening intention.
Total Scale/Single ItemScreening Intentionp Value
YesNo
Total scale score, mean (SD)14.16 (4.56)12.43 (5.67)0.001
Knowledge of CRC risk factors
Subscale score, mean (SD)5.88 (2.54)5.03 (3.08)<0.001
Older age, n (%)219 (46.01)32 (34.41)0.039
Family cancer history, n (%)286 (60.08)42 (45.16)0.008
Low vegetables fruits intake, n (%)341 (71.64)59 (63.44)0.114
Frequent high-fat food intake, n (%)342 (71.85)59 (63.44)0.104
Frequent meat intake, n (%)292 (61.34)54 (58.06)0.553
Obesity, n (%)266 (55.88)47 (50.54)0.343
Lack of physical activity, n (%)350 (73.53)62 (66.67)0.176
Eating fried food frequently, n (%)409 (85.92)72 (77.42)0.038
Smoking frequently, n (%)296 (62.18)41 (44.09)0.001
Knowledge of CRC symptoms
Subscale score, mean (SD)5.30 (2.22)4.52 (2.66)0.010
Blood in stool, n (%)421 (88.45)71 (76.34)0.002
Mucus in stool, n (%)337 (70.80)57 (61.29)0.069
Change in bowel habits, n (%)367 (77.10)55 (59.14)<0.001
Diarrhea or constipation, n (%)357 (75.00)64 (68.82)0.214
Abdominal and anal pain, n (%)330 (69.33)50 (53.76)0.004
Vomit, n (%)172 (36.13)29 (31.18)0.361
Anemia, n (%)179 (37.61)32 (34.41)0.559
Weight loss, n (%)360 (75.63)62 (66.67)0.071
Knowledge of CRC screening
Subscale score, mean (SD)2.98 (0.86)2.88 (0.91)0.057
No need to re-screen if normal from a previous screen, n (%)322 (67.65)57 (61.29)0.234
Screening is needed for people with bloody stool or diarrhea alternating with constipation, n (%)444 (93.28)87 (93.55)0.924
People with family history of colorectal polyps or CRC must screen, n (%)435 (91.39)76 (81.72)0.005
CRC screening tests include fecal occult blood tests and colonoscopy, n (%)385 (80.88)69 (74.19)0.142
Note: The comparison of mean scores between the two groups was implemented via Student’s t-test, and the comparison of each item between the two groups was via chi-square test.
Table
Table 3. Inter-correlations for the screening intention and some variables.
Table 3. Inter-correlations for the screening intention and some variables.
VariablesX1X2X3X4X5X6X7X8X9X10X11
X11.000.16 **0.01−0.23 **0.27 **−0.33 **0.52 **0.24 **0.22 **0.20 **0.11 **
X2 1.000.060.080.050.010.17 **0.070.070.10 *−0.07
X3 1.000.14 **0.16 **0.050.040.040.010.050.07
X4 1.00−0.18 **0.50 **−0.33 **−0.09 *−0.09 *−0.08−0.03
X5 1.00−0.22 **0.33 **0.17 **0.14 **0.14 **0.16 **
X6 1.00−0.49 **−0.16 **−0.12 **−0.14 **−0.15 **
X7 1.000.20 **0.17 **0.19 **0.10 *
X8 1.000.89 **0.88 **0.46 **
X9 1.000.61 **0.24 **
X10 1.000.32 **
X11 1.00
Note: X1: screening intention; X2: risk perception; X3: severity perception; X4: fear arousal; X5: response efficacy; X6: response cost; X7: self-efficacy; X8: total CRC knowledge score; X9: knowledge of CRC risk factors; X10: knowledge of CRC symptoms; X11: knowledge of CRC screening. X2 to X7 were the six subconstructs of PMT. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wei, W.; Zhang, M.; Zuo, D.; Li, Q.; Zhang, M.; Chen, X.; Yu, B.; Liu, Q. Screening Intention Prediction of Colorectal Cancer among Urban Chinese Based on the Protection Motivation Theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4203. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074203

AMA Style

Wei W, Zhang M, Zuo D, Li Q, Zhang M, Chen X, Yu B, Liu Q. Screening Intention Prediction of Colorectal Cancer among Urban Chinese Based on the Protection Motivation Theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(7):4203. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074203

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wei, Wenshuang, Miao Zhang, Dan Zuo, Qinmei Li, Min Zhang, Xinguang Chen, Bin Yu, and Qing Liu. 2022. "Screening Intention Prediction of Colorectal Cancer among Urban Chinese Based on the Protection Motivation Theory" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 7: 4203. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074203

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop