Table 1.
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