Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study identifies intrinsic motivation influences, enhancing breast cancer screening uptake.
Background: Early detection and timely treatment significantly enhance the odds of beating breast cancer, which is the most prevalent form of cancer among women globally. An individual’s intrinsic motivation plays a pivotal role in determining their willingness to undergo regular cancer screenings. Objective: The purpose of study is to identify factors of intrinsic motivation that affect breast cancer screening. Subjects and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 649 women living in Da Nang city. The data collection tools included a questionnaire form on participants’ characteristics and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory tool. In data analysis, descriptive statistics and regression were used. Results: The mean score for intrinsic motivation was calculated as 69.18 ± 8.23. The subscale scores for the intrinsic motivation for breast cancer screening were as follows: perceived usefulness and importance (18.86 ± 2.87), perceived choice and effort (19.80 ± 2.63), perceived interest and relatedness (12.94 ± 1.70), perceived competence (9.41 ± 2.13), pressure and tension (8.18 ±1.33). The most frequent reasons for intrinsic motivation of screening were higher scores for religion (β = 0.12), regular health check-up (β = 0.14), having family history of breast cancer (β = 0.18), regularly receiving breast cancer information (β = 0.10), and having women’s health issues (β =0.14). Conclusions: This study elucidates the factors that influence women’s decisions to engage in opportunistic breast cancer screening. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of these determinants is crucial for developing targeted and effective interventions to enhance screening participation, whether through organized initiatives or opportunistic methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: