Table 4. Logistic regression analysisa: Annual mammography adherenceb.
Sample including a cancer history for self | Sample excluding cancer history for self | |||
OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
Predisposing factor | ||||
Age | .95 | (.89 – 1.01) | .95 | (.89 – 1.02) |
Marital status (married or partnered) (Ref: never married or other) | .44 | (.17 – 1.12) | .43 | (.15 – 1.18) |
Need factor | ||||
Self cancer history | 3.27d | (1.29 – 8.33) | - | - |
Family cancer history | 1.61 | (.72 – 3.60) | 1.50 | (.63 – 3.56) |
Self-rated health status (Ref: very bad / bad) | ||||
Moderate | 1.56 | (.38 – 6.48) | 1.50 | (.29 – 7.61) |
Very good / good | 1.76 | (.39 – 7.96) | 1.62 | (.30 – 8.68) |
Enabling factor | ||||
Education (bachelor’s degree) (Ref: <bachelor’s degree) | .65 | (.23 – 1.89) | .42 | (.13 – 1.34) |
Income (Ref: < $20,000) | ||||
$20,000 - $39,999 | 2.12 | (.57 – 7.80) | 1.45 | (.36 – 5.85) |
$40,000 - $59,999 | .35 | (.07 – 1.67) | .34 | (.06 – 1.81) |
$60,000 - $79,999 | .54 | (.15 – 1.95) | .34 | (.07 – 1.51) |
$80,000 - $99,999 | 1.21 | (.21 – 6.81) | 1.13 | (.19 – 6.71) |
≥$100,000 | .54 | (.10 – 2.94) | .65 | (.12 – 3.60) |
Annual health check-up (Ref=no) | .17e | (.06 – 0.49) | .19e | (.06 – 0.56) |
Health insurance (Ref=no) | .83 | (.29 – 2.41) | .71 | (.22 – 2.31) |
Doctor recommendation | .92 | (.35 – 2.41) | 1.07 | (.38 – 2.96) |
English level (Ref: very poor/poor) | ||||
Moderate | .93 | (.32 – 2.69) | 1.30 | (.39 – 4.29) |
Very good / good | 1.17 | (.26 – 5.14) | 2.21 | (.45 – 10.76) |
BC knowledge scorec | 1.24 | (.77 – 1.97) | 1.12 | (.70 – 1.78) |
BC self-efficacy scorec | 2.06e | (1.24 – 3.41) | 1.83d | (1.04 – 3.20) |
BC decisional balance scorec | 3.08f | (1.86 – 5.10) | 3.43f | (1.91 – 6.17) |
Number of observations | 185 | 215 | ||
Wald x2 test | 40.74e | 50.02f | ||
Pseudo R2 | .3371 | .3690 |
a. Heterogeneity robust standard errors are used
b. Mammography adherence based on annual screening mammography
c. Standardized scores
d. P<.05.
e. P<.01
f. P<.001.