Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 5;22:37. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-09092-w

Table 1.

Total, direct and indirect effects of the intervention on screening outcome

Screening uptake
Coefficient (SE)a, p-value Relative measures
Model 1
 Total effect 2.457 (0.131),<0.001
 Direct effect 1.709 (0.237),<0.001 0.696
 Indirect effect 0.748 (0.197),<0.001 0.304
 Via Knowledge −0.077 (0.03),0.009 −0.031
 Via Psychosocial score 0.785 (0.194),<0.001 0.319
 Via Knowledge & Psychosocial score 0.041 (0.014),0.003 0.017
Model 2
 Total effect 2.445 (0.138),<.001
 Direct effect 2.153 (0.174),<.001 0.881
 Indirect effect 0.292 (0.102),0.004 0.119
 Via Fatalism 0.072 (0.026),0.046 0.029
 Via Knowledge −0.053 (0.026),0.045 −0.022
 Via Self efficacy 0.273 (0.096),0.004 0.112

Model 1: Path analysis with overall psychosocial health construct (benefits, barriers, susceptibility, self-efficacy and fatalism)

Model 2: Path analysis with individual psychosocial construct scores

Some significant variables such as health status, education, doctor recommended were also included in the model 1 while age, gender, health status, education, doctor recommended, heard of colorectal cancer, years in US, and family history of cancer were included in different parts of model 2

SE Standard Error

aUnstandardized regression coefficient