Skip to main content

Table 7 Model 2 Path analysis after adjusting for confounders

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

  Coefficient (SE)a p-value
Benefit
 Intervention-education 2.709 (0.299) <0.001
Barrier
 Intervention-education 1.792 (0.739) 0.015
 Doctor recommended CRC-yes −2.031 (1.012) 0.045
 Health status-excellent/good/fair −1.976 (0.711) 0.005
 Heard of CRC −3.559 (0.764) <0.001
Fatalism
 Intervention-education −1.753 (0.294) <0.001
 Age (years) 0.082 (0.027) 0.003
 Education-HS −1.548 (0.345) <0.001
 Heard of CRC −0.827 (0.3) 0.006
Self-Efficacy
 Intervention-education 11.548 (0.592) <0.001
 Doctor recommended CRC-yes 2.928 (0.819) <0.001
Susceptibility
 Intervention-education 0.285 (0.13) 0.028
 Health status-excellent/good/fair −0.44 (0.128) 0.001
 Family history of cancer 1.141 (0.312) <0.001
Knowledge
 Intervention-education 0.445 (0.088) <0.001
Screening uptake
 Intervention-education 3.698 (0.288) <0.001
 Fatalism −0.067 (0.031) 0.033
 Knowledge −0.259 (0.111) 0.02
 Self-efficacy 0.051 (0.019) 0.009
Intervention-Education
 Doctor recommended CRC-yes −0.563 (0.261) 0.031
 Education-diploma 1.121 (0.262) <0.001
 Gender-female −0.698 (0.253) 0.006
 Health status-excellent/good/fair −0.487 (0.197) 0.013
 Heard of CRC −0.85 (0.213) <0.001
 Baseline barrier 0.063 (0.012) <0.001
 Baseline fatalism −0.08 (0.027) 0.004
 Baseline knowledge −0.258 (0.079) 0.001
 Baseline self-efficacy 0.137 (0.014) <0.001
  1. Model 2: Path analysis with individual psychosocial scores
  2. SE Standard Error, CRC Colorectal Cancer
  3. aUnstandardized regression coefficient