With increasing mammogram rates, identifying attributes of non-attending women entails going beyond differences in demographic groups to reveal complex interactions among personality attributes. In this study, we analyzed survey data from 474 women aged 41 years and older using decision trees. By incorporating personality, religiousness, and age, we were able to correctly classify 42.9 percent of non-attenders compared to 4.4 percent with logistic regression analysis. Our findings suggest that incorporating personality and religiousness attributes may increase non-attender identification. Furthermore, the simple profile generated by decision trees provides a clear map useful for intervention planning.
AllenJDPérezJEPischkeCR. (2014) Dimensions of religiousness and cancer screening behaviors among church-going Latinas. Journal of Religion and Health53(1): 190–203.
2.
AspinwallLG (2005) The psychology of future-oriented thinking: From achievement to proactive coping, adaptation, and aging. Motivation and Emotion29(4): 203–235.
3.
AzaizaFCohenMDaoudF. (2011) Traditional-Westernizing continuum of change in screening behaviors: Comparison between Arab women in Israel and the West Bank. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment128(1): 219–227.
4.
BerryDACroninKAPlevritisSK. (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine353(17): 1784–1792.
5.
BleyerAWelchHG (2012) Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. New England Journal of Medicine367(21): 1998–2005.
6.
BreimanL (2001) Random forests. Machine Learning45(1): 5–32.
7.
BreimanLFriedmanJHOlshenRA. (1984) Classification and Regression Trees. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.
8.
CalvocoressiLStolarMKaslSV. (2005) Applying recursive partitioning to a prospective study of factors associated with adherence to mammography screening guidelines. American Journal of Epidemiology162(12): 1215–1224.
9.
ChampionVLSkinnerCSMenonU. (2004) A breast cancer fear scale: Psychometric development. Journal of Health Psychology9(6): 753–762.
10.
ClarkeJNEverestMM (2006) Cancer in the mass print media: Fear, uncertainty and the medical model. Social Science & Medicine62(10): 2591–2600.
11.
DemirBKumkaleGT (2013) Individual differences in willingness to become an organ donor: A decision tree approach to reasoned action. Personality and Individual Differences55: 63–69.
12.
FreitasCTuraLFRCostaN. (2012) A population-based breast cancer screening programme: Conducting a comprehensive survey to explore adherence determinants. European Journal of Cancer Care21(3): 349–359.
13.
HallPAFongGT (2003) The effects of a brief time perspective intervention for increasing physical activity among young adults. Psychology and Health18(6): 685–706.
14.
HoltCLClarkEKlemPR (2007) Expansion and validation of the spiritual health locus of control scale factorial analysis and predictive validity. Journal of Health Psychology12(4): 597–612.
15.
LukwagoSNKreuterMWHoltCL. (2003) Sociocultural correlates of breast cancer knowledge and screening in urban African American women. American Journal of Public Health93(8): 1271–1274.
16.
MarkoKWSavickasML (1998) Effectiveness of a career time perspective intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior52(1): 106–119.
17.
MayoRMUredaJRParkerVG (2001) Importance of fatalism in understanding mammography screening in rural elderly women. Journal of Women & Aging13: 57–72.
18.
MillerABWallCBainesCJ. (2014) Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian national breast screening study: Randomised screening trial. British Medical Journal348: g366.
19.
National Center for Health Statistics (2013) Health, United States, 2012: With Special Feature on Emergency Care. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
20.
PaceLEKeatingNL (2014) A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. Journal of the American Medical Association311(13): 1327–1335.
21.
RakowskiWBreslauES (2004) Perspectives on behavioral and social science research on cancer screening. Cancer101(S5): 1118–1130.
22.
RoncancioAMWardKKFernandezME (2014) The influence of time perspective on cervical cancer screening among Latinas in the United States. Journal of Health Psychology19(12): 1547–1553.
23.
RuiterRAVerplankenBKokG. (2003) The role of coping appraisal in reactions to fear appeals: Do we need threat information?Journal of Health Psychology8(4): 465–474.
24.
RyffCAlmeidaDMAyanianJS. (2012a) Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II): Milwaukee African American Sample, 2005–2006. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
25.
RyffCAlmeidaDMAyanianJS. (2012b) National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II): 2004–2006. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
26.
RyffCDSeemanTWeinsteinM (2013) National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II): Biomarker Project, 2004–2009. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
27.
Salmoirago-BlotcherEFitchettGOckeneJK. (2011) Religion and healthy lifestyle behaviors among postmenopausal women: The women’s health initiative. Journal of Behavioral Medicine34(5): 360–371.
28.
SchwartzMDTaylorKLWillardKS. (1999) Distress, personality, and mammography utilization among women with a family history of breast cancer. Health Psychology18(4): 327–332.
29.
SmithRABrooksDCokkinidesV. (2013) Cancer screening in the United States, 2013. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians63(2): 87–105.
30.
Steele-MosesSKRussellKMKreuterM. (2009) Cultural constructs, stage of change, and adherence to mammography among low-income African American women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved20(1): 257–273.
31.
StephensonMTHoyleRHPalmgreenP. (2003) Brief measures of sensation seeking for screening and large-scale surveys. Drug and Alcohol Dependence72(3): 279–286.
32.
StroblCMalleyJTutzG (2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods14(4): 323–348.
