Linking Pathways from Perceived Absolute Risk and Social Support to Female Regular Health Screening: Integrated with Social Cognitive Theory Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing incidence of cancer among women of childbearing age has emerged as a significant health crisis, necessitating urgent attention from both individuals and societal medical systems. Cancer-related screening and prevention strategies are prevalent public health responses to this challenge. This study integrates the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) with the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to examine the psychological and behavioral factors influencing health outcomes. Specifically, it investigates how perceived absolute risk, self-efficacy, self-regulation, social support, and health screening behaviors interrelate, focusing on their mutual reinforcement in the context of female health regulation. Addressing a gap in existing research on health behavior change in a sustainable loop, this study employs a nationally representative online survey with 904 female participants. Data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), revealing that the integrated model exhibited a good fit and that all five hypotheses were supported. The findings emphasizing the importance of psychological and behavioral impacts on public health behaviors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".