Differences in Health Beliefs Across Stage of Adoption of Mammography in Iranian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that screening for breast cancer is effective, adherence with screening recommendations in Iranian women is low. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to (a) examine the relationships between related beliefs and (b) to determine to what extent women in stages of mammography adoption differ in their agreement of individual perceived health beliefs. METHODS: A sample of 686 Iranian women completed a questionnaire including selected constructs of the Health Belief Model and stages of mammography adoption. RESULTS: Proportions of participants who were in the preadoption and adoption stages were 75% and 17.8%, respectively. Precontemplators showed significantly lower positive attitude and greater agreement for most of the barrier items than did those in other adoption stages. In terms of specific items, women in the relapse and maintenance stages endorsed greatest agreement for the barrier items "not knowing how to get a mammogram" and "forget to schedule," respectively. Common barriers for women in preadoption stages were being painful, taking much time, and embarrassing. CONCLUSION: Iranian women are less likely than other Asian women to be in the maintenance and action stages. Identifying the associations between perceived related beliefs items and stages of mammography adoption may provide detailed information to allow for future research and guide the development of interventions not only for Iranian women but also for similar cultural and immigrant groups that have been neglected to date in the breast cancer literature. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Examining the interactions between perceived related beliefs items and other beliefs such as perceived control and self-efficacy to having a mammography is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".