Mediators of screening uptake in a colorectal cancer screening intervention among Hispanics

BMC Cancer

Table 5 Model 2 Path analysis

	Coefficient (SE)^a	p-value	R²
Benefit			0.105
Intervention-education	2.69 (0.377)	<.001
Barrier			0.071
Intervention-education	1.995 (0.820)	0.015
Doctor recommended CRC-yes	−1.956 (1.008)	0.052
Health status-excellent/good/fair	−1.956 (0.728)	0.007
Heard of CRC-yes	−3.410 (0.775)	<.001
Fatalism			0.105
Intervention-education	−1.789 (0.300)	<.001
Age-years	0.078 (0.029)	0.007
Education - Diploma	−1.490 (0.419)	<.001
Heard of CRC-yes	−0.881 (0.305)	0.004
Knowledge			0.035
Intervention-education	0.442 (0.091)	<.001
Self-efficacy			0.351
Intervention-education	11.410 (0.877)	<.001
Doctor recommended CRC-yes	2.907 (0.852)	0.001
Susceptibility			0.047
Health status-excellent/good/fair	−0.467 (0.135)	0.001
Family history of cancer-yes	1.128 (0.431)	0.009
Intervention-education	0.253 (0.146)	0.082
Screening uptake			0.616
Intervention-education	2.153 (0.174)	<.001
Fatalism	−0.040 (0.016)	0.012
Knowledge	−0.120 (0.055)	0.030
Self-efficacy	0.024 (0.008)	0.003
Model fit criteria	N = 699
	RMSEA = 0.014 (p = 1)
	CFI = 0.994
	TLI = 0.988

Model 2: Path analysis with individual psychosocial scores
CRC Colorectal Cancer, SE Standard Error, OR Odds Ratio, R2 Coefficient of Determination, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index
^aUnstandardized regression coefficient

ISSN: 1471-2407