Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 5 Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlations between Patient-Physician Relationships with, Self-Efficacy, Perceived Screening Effectiveness, and Screening Reassurance

From: Patient-physician relationships, health self-efficacy, and gynecologic cancer screening among women with Lynch syndrome

 

CASE Understand & Participate In Care

CASE Positive Attitude

CASE Seek & Obtain Information

Watchful of Certain Symptoms (PE)

PE of CA125 Blood Test (PE)

Undergo Pelvic Ultrasound (PE)

Undergo Transvaginal Ultrasound (PE)

Endometrial Biopsy (PE)

Overall Screening Reassurance

PICS Doctor Facilitation

.273

−.006

.317

−.164

.089

.113

.082

−.071

.134

PICS Patient Information

.321

.278

.297

.173

.584*

.742***

.586 **

.751*

.529*

PICS Decision Making

.248

.134

.331

.122

.601*

.625**

.435*

.392

.215

Confident FP Understands cancer risk

.191

.188

.369**

.179

−.093

.218

.192

.417

.098

Disagree with FP about managing cancer risk

−.169

.051

−.406**

.228

.124

.028

.317

−.028

.281

  1. Note: PICS (Perceived Involvement in Care Scale); FP (Family Physician); CASE (Cancer Self-Efficacy Scale); PE (Perceived Effectiveness). Bolded correlations are statistically significant
  2. *p < .05
  3. **p < .01
  4. ***p < .001
Back to article page

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice

ISSN: 1897-4287