Bowel cancer screening: Self Determination Theory Background: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Bowel cancer screening: Self Determination Theory

Flight, Zajac, Wilson, Turnbull, Cole: Preventative Health Flagship, WCC 2012

Amo$va$on( (AM)! Controlled(mo$va$on( (CM)! Autonomous(mo$va$on( (ATM)! I"can’t"see" why"I"should" bother"with" screening.! I"screen""because"my"GP" says"I"should.! I"screen"because"I"will"feel" guilty"if"I"don’t.! I"screen"because"I"value"the"benefits"of" screening.! I"screen"because"I"consider"screening"a" part"of"who"I"am.!

Background: Australia’s National Bowel Cancer Screening Program participation rate is sub-optimal. Can Self Determination Theorya shed light on motivation to screen using a Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)?

a Deci & Ryan (2000) Am Psychol 55, 68-78

Bowel cancer screening: Self Determination Theory

Methods

• N=1827 recruited from the

electoral roll (subsample of larger study)

• Age between 50 and 74
• Dependent variables: (1)

readiness to screen (baseline survey); (2) return of FIT

• Independent variables: (1) self

efficacy (baseline survey); (2) scores on types of motivation (AM, CM, ATM) determined from endpoint survey administered following return of FIT or 12 weeks after (non participants)

Results

• Autonomous Motivation (ATM)

significantly distinguished between those ready to screen at baseline from those not ready (AM and CM not sig.)

• ATM significantly associated with

return of completed FIT (AM and CM not sig.)

• SE initially significant correlate of

completed FIT

• When ATM entered into

regression model, SE no longer an influence

Flight, Zajac, Wilson, Turnbull, Cole: Preventative Health Flagship, WCC 2012

Flight, Zajac, Wilson, Turnbull, Cole: Preventative Health Flagship, WCC 2012

Bowel cancer screening: Self Determination Theory

Conclusions

• All participants agreed to receive a FIT. However:
• Those who intended to screen and did screen scored higher
• n self efficacy than non-participants.
• Those who intended to screen and did screen scored

significantly higher on ATM than non-participants, but did not differ on AM and CM.

• When entered into a regression model (self efficacy 1, ATM

2) the effect of self efficacy on screening behaviour disappeared.

• Screening invitations should aim to enhance autonomous

motivation eg through motivational interviewing.