arbiter
JournalsAccount

Dual-Pathway Mechanisms of Cancer Screening Decisions Among Family Caregivers in China: A Mixed-Methods Study

Sheng Bao & Yubing Chen

Health Communication2026https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2606895article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This study used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design to investigate the dual-pathway mechanisms influencing cancer screening decisions among family caregivers of cancer patients. A dual-pathway model was developed through qualitative interviews (N = 20) and subsequently validated with quantitative surveys (N = 705). Key findings revealed two distinct pathways. The cognitive pathway showed that caregiving experience promoted screening intentions by enhancing information literacy self-efficacy via health information acquisition. In contrast, the affective pathway indicated that fear of cancer progression predicted greater emotional exhaustion, which in turn suppressed screening decisions. Furthermore, interaction between the two pathways was identified: information literacy self-efficacy buffered the negative impact of emotional exhaustion on screening decisions (β = -.18, p p < .05). These results reveal the interplay between cognitive and affective units, providing a theoretical foundation for designing dual-pathway ("cognitive empowerment-affective regulation") intervention.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2606895

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sheng2026,
  title        = {{Dual-Pathway Mechanisms of Cancer Screening Decisions Among Family Caregivers in China: A Mixed-Methods Study}},
  author       = {Sheng Bao & Yubing Chen},
  journal      = {Health Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2606895},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Dual-Pathway Mechanisms of Cancer Screening Decisions Among Family Caregivers in China: A Mixed-Methods Study

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.