(190) Meta-Analytic Path Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of The Health Belief Model In Predicting Women'S Sexual Health Behavior: Breast Cancer As An Example

Chi Hwa Liao,Prof Chun Ming Shih,Peng Chen Chung,Prof Shu Ling Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae041.064

2024-06-15

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Abstract:Objectives To use the Health Belief Model to predict women's sexual health behaviors, with a specific focus on breast cancer. Methods Electronic databases were searched between 1974 and 2020 by two independent reviewers using Science Direct Online (SDOL), PubMed, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases. Search terms included "Health Belief Models", "breast cancer screening", "perceived benefit", "perceived susceptibility", "perceived severity", "perceived barrier", "self- efficacy", or "cue to action". Statistical analysis used meta-analytic path analysis approaches. Results 47 papers were included, and 324 statistical data were analyzed. Meta-analytic path analysis showed that the health belief model had the highest predictive power for mammography (19.30%), followed by breast self-examination, and the lowest predictive power for clinical breast examination. Self-efficacy (β= 0.64, SE =0.02, p < .001) was the strongest positive factor in the health belief model predicting mammography. Perceived severity (β = -0.13, SE =0.02, p < .001) and perceived barrier were negative factors (β = -0.40, SE =0.02, p < .001). In addition, in the survey of moderating variables, subject characteristics such as ages, educational levels, marital status, races, and countries, as well as the publication dates and study designs, had a significant influence on female sexual health behaviors. Conclusions Among the common breast cancer screening methods, the Health Belief Model was the strongest predictor of mammography. Perceived barrier was found to be the primary negative predictor of mammography. Subjects experienced greater difficulty in undergoing mammography, possibly because of pain or discomfort associated with the procedure. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

urology & nephrology