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 participation

ORc

95% CI

Decisional conflict – CRC screening participation

.193**

.132–.282

B. Each decision-making style separately – Decisional conflict

Bd

95% 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 conflict

Bd

95% 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