Cited by 50Women's cancer prevention and managementCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Applying the transtheoretical model to cervical cancer screening in Vietnamese‐American women

Tung, W.‐C., Nguyen, D.H.T., Tran, D.N.·2008·International Nursing Review

Abstract

Background: Low levels of Papanicolaou (Pap) screening participation in Vietnamese‐American women remain a significant public health problem. The transtheoretical model (TTM) suggests that individuals adopting Pap smear behaviour move through a series of stages of readiness to change. Determining a woman's level of readiness for regular Pap testing and identifying the screening behaviour that an individual already performs is important in the development of successful intervention programmes that address the specific needs of Vietnamese‐American women in different stages. Aims: To describe Pap smear screening behaviours of Vietnamese‐American women, and to examine whether constructs (stages of change, self‐efficacy and perceived benefits/barriers) from the TTM are applicable to Vietnamese‐American women relative to Pap testing. Methods: A descriptive, cross‐sectional design with snowball sampling was used to recruit participants. A total of 80 Vietnamese‐American women completed the self‐administered questionnaire. Results: Most respondents (62.5%) reported previous Pap testing and only 46.3% receiving regular Pap testing. Compared with those in the pre‐contemplation stage of the TTM, participants in maintenance reported significantly less self‐efficacy (F (3, 73) = 4.85, P = 0.00), a lower level of perceived barriers (F (3, 75) = 5.99, P = 0.00) and a higher level of perceived benefits (F (3, 76) = 3.91, P = 0.01) relative to Pap smear. Conclusions: The results support some of the assumptions of the TTM but raise questions about the predicted relationships between stages of change and self‐efficacy. Continued research is needed to identify the most effective theory‐based interventions for evidence‐based nursing practice in this population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2007.00602.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tung, W. ‐., Nguyen, D. H. T., & Tran, D. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Tung, W.‐C.
Venue
International Nursing Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-02-12
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
73-80
ISSN
  • 0020-8132 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-7657
OpenAlex
W2051380817
Cited by
50
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Nursing Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
transtheoretical model, cervical cancer screening, Pap smear, Vietnamese American women, stages of change, self-efficacy, perceived barriers, perceived benefits, screening uptake, health behavior change, theory-based intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Asian, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Concept, United States, Vaginal Smears, Vietnam, Personal Construct Theory, Papanicolaou Test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review