Skip to main content

Table 4 Associations between: A. Decision-making styles and CRC screening participation, with each decision-making style entered separately in a multiple logistic regression model; B. Decision-making styles and CRC screening participation, with all decision-making styles entered together into one multiple logistic regression modela

From: Decision-making styles in the context of colorectal cancer screening

A. Each decision-making style separately – CRC screening participationORb95% CI
Rational decision-making style – CRC screening participation.996.932–1.064
Intuitive decision-making style – CRC screening participation.967.918–1.019
Dependent decision-making style – CRC screening participation.992.946–1.041
Avoidant decision-making style – CRC screening participation1.074*1.021–1.129
Spontaneous decision-making style – CRC screening participation.928*.873–.987
B. All decision-making styles together in one model – CRC screening participationORc95% CI
Rational decision-making style – CRC screening participation1.004.935–1.078
Intuitive decision-making style – CRC screening participation.997.940–1.058
Dependent decision-making style – CRC screening participation.940*.886–.997
Avoidant decision-making style – CRC screening participation1.111**1.047–1.178
Spontaneous decision-making style – CRC screening participation.924*.861–.991
  1. a Association models, with CRC screening participation entered as dependent variable (score 1 = participation, score 2 = non participation). Decision-making styles are the independent variables; higher scores mean the style is used more frequently (scores range from 5 to 25)
  2. b Rational style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, significant confounding found regarding both variables
  3. Intuitive style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, significant confounding found regarding education.
  4. Dependent style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, significant confounding found regarding self-reported HL.
  5. Avoidant style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, significant confounding found regarding both variables.
  6. Spontaneous style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, no significant confounding found regarding both variables.
  7. cRational style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, significant confounding found regarding both variables
  8. Intuitive style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, significant confounding found regarding both variables.
  9. Dependent style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, no significant confounding found regarding both variables.
  10. Avoidant style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, no significant confounding found regarding both variables.
  11. Spontaneous style: OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, no significant confounding found regarding both variables.
  12. *Significant at p < .05
  13. **Significant at p < .001