Skip to main content

Table 5 Associations between: A. Decisional conflict and CRC screening participation (multiple logistic regression)a; B. Decision-making styles and decisional conflict, with each decision-making style entered separately in a multiple linear regression model; C. Decision-making styles and decisional conflict, with all decision-making styles entered together into one multiple linear regression modelb

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

A. Decisional conflict – CRC screening participationORc95% CI
Decisional conflict – CRC screening participation.193**.132–.282
B. Each decision-making style separately – Decisional conflictBd95% CI
Rational decision-making style – Decisional conflict.045**.036–.054
Intuitive decision-making style – Decisional conflict.017**.009–.025
Dependent decision-making style – Decisional conflict−.001−.008–.006
Avoidant decision-making style – Decisional conflict−.043**−.050 – -.036
Spontaneous decision-making style – Decisional conflict.003−.006–.011
C. All decision-making styles together in one model – Decisional conflictBd95% CI
Rational decision-making style – Decisional conflict.042**.033–.051
Intuitive decision-making style – Decisional conflict.014**.007–.022
Dependent decision-making style – Decisional conflict.012*.004–.019
Avoidant decision-making style – Decisional conflict−.050**−.058 – -.042
Spontaneous decision-making style – Decisional conflict.004−.005–.013
  1. a Association model, with CRC screening participation entered as dependent variable. Decisional conflict as independent variable; a higher score means less experienced decisional conflict (scores range from 1 to 5)
  2. b Association models, with decisional conflict entered as dependent variable. Decision-making styles are the independent variables; higher scores mean the style is used more frequently (scores range from 5 to 25)
  3. c OR adjusted for education and self-reported HL, no significant confounding found regarding both variables
  4. d Concerning all styles: betas adjusted for education and self-reported HL, no significant confounding found regarding both variables
  5. * Significant at p < .05
  6. ** Significant at p < .001