2019
DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1687129
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictors of Women’s Awareness of the Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening and Associations with Confusion, Ambivalence, and Information Seeking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
1
2
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In 2018, the odds of mammography utilization among women who looked up health information on the internet are 1.36 times the odds of utilization among those who did not (p < 0.001). Women who are using the internet to search for health information could be more engaged and have better health literacy, and thus more probable to use mammography screening [24]. The results support what was demonstrated by Tan and Goonawardene [12] that seeking health information on the internet promotes patient-physician communication and encourages patients to make better and informed decisions about their health.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…In 2018, the odds of mammography utilization among women who looked up health information on the internet are 1.36 times the odds of utilization among those who did not (p < 0.001). Women who are using the internet to search for health information could be more engaged and have better health literacy, and thus more probable to use mammography screening [24]. The results support what was demonstrated by Tan and Goonawardene [12] that seeking health information on the internet promotes patient-physician communication and encourages patients to make better and informed decisions about their health.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…As suggested by previous studies, exposure to two-sided messages might trigger ambivalence (Cornelis et al, 2020;Shi et al, 2021), and message recipients might take actions to cope with it. Based on theories on uncertainty management, people may engage in information seeking to lessen their uncertainty (Zimbres et al, 2021).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…However, from the perspective of conflicting information, extant research also reveals negative impacts of two-sided messaging on persuasion. A two-sided message presents conflicting information (Nagler and LoRusso, 2017), which, according to literature, can lead to undesired outcomes by inducing uncertainty, ambivalence, confusion and negative cognitions and affects toward advised behavior among message recipients (Chang, 2013; Nagler and LoRusso, 2017; Shi et al , 2021). A recent study showed that the level of ambivalence elicited by a two-sided message determined the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of message exposure, despite being disregarded by literature on message sidedness (Cornelis et al , 2020).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Опыт рентгенолога, специализация, количество проанализированных маммограмм за год -все это отражается на частоте возникновения расхождений в интерпретации скрининговых исследований [10]. Отрицательные последствия скрининга включают в себя как ложноположительные (гипердиагностика) результаты и вытекающие из этого излишние инвазивные болезненные процедуры, сопровождающиеся тревожностью пациенток, так и ложноотрицательные (гиподиагностика) результаты, позволяющие выявить РМЖ только на поздних стадиях [11]. Ложноположительные результаты встречаются у 8-10% женщин, проходящих скрининг, а около 20-25% опухолей остаются незамеченными экспертами [12,13,14].…”
Section: актуальность скрининга рака молочной железыunclassified