Top

Published in:

01-06-2012 | Original Article

Using the Interdependence Model to Understand Spousal Influence on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intentions: A Structural Equation Model

Authors: Sharon Manne, Ph.D., Deborah Kashy, Ph.D., David S. Weinberg, M.D., Joseph A. Boscarino, Ph.D., Deborah J. Bowen, Ph.D.

Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Issue 3/2012

Abstract

Background

Although it is widely thought that the marital relationship plays a role in individuals’ decisions to have colorectal cancer screening, few studies have evaluated partner influences.

Purpose

We evaluated the role of marital relationship factors such as a relational perspective on the frequency of spouse discussions about screening and screening intentions. Individual-level factors were also evaluated.

Methods

One hundred sixty-eight couples with both members non-adherent with screening completed measures of perceived risk, screening benefits and barriers, marital quality, relational perspective, discussion frequency, and screening intentions.

Results

Couples’ attitudes about screening were interdependent and one partner’s attitudes and behavior were associated with the other partner’s intention. There was also evidence of joint effects in that intentions were associated with both one’s partner’s attitudes and one’s own attitudes.

Conclusions

Colorectal screening intentions are associated with both partners’ attitudes as well as whether or not couples have discussed screening with one another.

The correlation between insurance status and each of the variables included in the model were small and non-significant with the exception of the correlation between the husband’s insurance status and whether the husband discussed screening with his wife (r = 0.19, p = 0.36).

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2011, Atlanta: American Cancer Society. Available at http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/index. Accessed 12 April 2011.

US Dept of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010, Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/. Accessed 12 April 2011.

Beydoun HA., Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Contr. 2008; 9: 339-359.

McQueen A., Vernon SW, Rothman AJ., Norman GJ, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Examining the role of perceived susceptibility on colorectal cancer screening intention and behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 40: 205–217.PubMedCrossRef

Madlensky L, Esplen MJ, Gallinger S, McLaughlin JR, Goal V. Relatives of colorectal cancer patients: Factors associated with screening behavior. Am J Prev Med, 2003; 25: 87–94.CrossRef

Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer S, Meropol NJ, Haller D, Rakowski W, Babb J, Jandorf L. Correlates of colorectal cancer screening compliance and stage of adoption among siblings of individuals with early onset colorectal cancer. Health Psych. 2002; 21: 3–15.CrossRef

Harris JN, Hay J., Kuniyiki A., Asgari MM, Press N, Bowen DJ. Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families. Psych Onc. 2010; 19: 1102–1111.CrossRef

Falba TA, Sindelar JL. Spousal concordance in health behavior change. Health Serv Res. 2008; 43: 96–116.PubMedCrossRef

Kolonel LN, Lee J. Husband-wife correspondence in smoking, drinking, and dietary habits. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998; 34: 99–104.

10.

Wilson SE. The health capital of families: An investigation of the inter-spousal correlation in health status. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55: 1157–1172.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Lewis MA, DeVellis BM, Sleath. Social influence and interpersonal communication in health behavior. In: Glanz DK, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 3rd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 240–264.

12.

Lewis MA, McBride CM, Pollak KI, Puleo E, Butterfield RM, Emmons KM. Understanding health behavior change among couples: An interdependence and communal coping approach. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62: 1369–1380.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, Levinger G, et al. Analyzing close relationships. In Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey J, Huston TL, Levinger G, et al eds. Close relationships. San Francisco, CA: Freeman; 1983; 20–67.

14.

Kelley HH, Thibaut TW. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York; Wiley; 1978.

15.

Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM. Interdependence processes. In Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW eds. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles New York: The Guilford Press; 1996: 564–596.

16.

Lewis MA, Butterfield R, Darbes L, Johnston-Brooks CH. The conceptualization and assessment of health-related social control. J Soc Pers Rel. 2004; 21: 669–687.CrossRef

17.

Franks MM, Rook KS, Keteyian SJ, Stephens MA, Franklin BA, Artinian NT. Spouses' provision of health-related support and control to patients participating in cardiac rehabilitation. J Fam Psychol. 2006; 20: 311–318.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Butterfield R, Lewis M. Health-related social influence: A social ecological perspective on tactic use. J Soc Pers Rel. 2002; 19: 505–626.CrossRef

19.

Lewis MA. Butterfield R. Antecedents and reactions to health-related social control. Pers Soc Psych Bull. 2005; 31: 416–427.CrossRef

20.

Lewis MA, Rook KS. Social control in personal relationships: Impact on health behaviors and psychological distress. Health Psychol. 1991; 18: 63–71.CrossRef

21.

Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Dube CE. Screening mammography and constructs from the transtheoretical model: Associations using two definitions of stage of adoption. Ann Behav Med. 1996; 18: 91–100.CrossRef

22.

Sharpley CE., Rogers HJ. Preliminary validation of the Abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment scale: Some psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital adjustment. Educ Psych Meas. 1984; 44: 1045–1050.CrossRef

23.

Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press: 2006.

24.

Miller GR, Bostner F. Persuasion in personal relationships. In: S. Duck, ed. A handbook of personal relationships New York: Wiley; 1988: 275–288.

25.

Cutrona C. Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1996.

26.

Gregory TA, Wilson C, Duncan A, Turnbull D, Cole SR, Young G. Demographic, social cognitive and social ecological predictors of intention and participation in screening for colorectal cancer. BMC Pub Health. 2011; 11: 38.CrossRef

27.

Power E, Van Jaarsveld C, McCaffery K, Miles A, Atkin W, Wardle J. Understanding intentions and action in colorectal cancer screening. Ann Beh Med. 2008; 35: 285–294.CrossRef

28.

Ajzen I., Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.

29.

Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.

30.

Krosnick, J, Chang, L. A comparison of the random digit dialing telephone survey methodology with internet survey methodology as implemented by Knowledge Networks and Harris Interactive. In: Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2001: Montreal, Canada.

31.

Dennis, M. Are internet panels creating professional respondents? The benefits of online panels far outweigh the potential for panel effects. Marketing Research. 2001; 13(Summer): 34–38.

Title: Using the Interdependence Model to Understand Spousal Influence on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intentions: A Structural Equation Model
Authors: Sharon Manne, Ph.D.
Deborah Kashy, Ph.D.
David S. Weinberg, M.D.
Joseph A. Boscarino, Ph.D.
Deborah J. Bowen, Ph.D.
Publication date: 01-06-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0883-6612
Electronic ISSN: 1532-4796
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9344-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Using the Interdependence Model to Understand Spousal Influence on Colorectal Cancer Screening Intentions: A Structural Equation Model

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Conceptualizing Psychosocial Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease: A Comment on Ewart et al.

I (should) Need a Cigarette: Adolescent Social Anxiety and Cigarette Smoking

History of Major Depressive Disorder Prospectively Predicts Worse Quality of Life in Women with Breast Cancer

The Effect of Patient–Provider Communication on Medication Adherence in Hypertensive Black Patients: Does Race Concordance Matter?

Distinguishing Between-Person and Within-Person Relationships in Longitudinal Health Research: Arthritis and Quality of Life

Acute Exercise Improves Physical Sexual Arousal in Women Taking Antidepressants