"There is a God or There is No God-It is in the Hands of God:" Fatalistic Beliefs Among Israeli People About Cancer and Their Impact on Behavioral Outcomes.

This qualitative study examined fatalistic beliefs and cancer causal attributions among people without cancer. Participants were 30 Israeli women and men aged 51-70 from diverse sociocultural backgrounds who participated in four focus groups. Three main themes emerged, referring to the variability in fatalistic beliefs of cancer occurrence and cancer outcome, the duality in attributing causality to divine providence and mere luck or chance, and the connection between distinct fatalistic beliefs and health behaviors. Data analysis enabled an expansion of the understanding of cancer fatalism as a multidimensional structure, whereby interactions between causality attribution and different fatalistic beliefs are related to prevention and screening behaviors.

Associations Between Cancer Fatalism, Causal Attributions, and Perceptions of Benefits and Barriers to Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the associations between cancer causal attributions (divine providence, chance or luck, environmental or genetic factors, weak personal resilience), cancer fatalistic beliefs (cancer occurrence and outcome beliefs), and benefits of and barriers to screening for early detection of colorectal cancer. METHODS: It was a cross-sectional study of 252 individuals (46% men and 54% women) aged 50-75. Participants completed measures of cancer causal attributions, Powe's cancer fatalism questionnaire, and the benefits and barriers to colorectal cancer screening subscales of the health belief model. The study model was assessed using path analysis and mediation tests. RESULTS: Participants expressed moderate levels of occurrence and outcome of fatalistic beliefs, moderate levels of causal attributions, a high level of perception of the benefits of screening, and a moderate level of barriers to screening. The path model showed good fit measures (χ2 = 17.38, df = 14, p = .24; χ2/df = 1.24; NFI = .98; TLI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03, 90% CI = .01, .07). Outcome fatalism mediated the relationship between each causal attribution and perceived barriers, whereas occurrence fatalism mediated only the relationship between the causal attribution of divine providence and the perceived benefits of screening. CONCLUSIONS: The results add to our understanding of the effects of causal attributions and fatalistic beliefs on perceptions of benefits and barriers to screening; hence, these factors should be the focus of change to reduce barriers to screening for early detection of cancer.

Development and validation of the Fatalistic Causal Attributions of Cancer Questionnaire: A three-phase study.

OBJECTIVES: Tools have been developed to assess the existence and intensity of fatalistic beliefs. Causal attributions of cancer, referring to the foundation for fatalistic views of cancer as being predetermined or reflecting an unavoidable death, are lacking. The aim was to develop and validate the Fatalistic Causal Attributions of Cancer Questionnaire, a measurement tool for studying the causal attributions of cancer. METHODS: Three-phase study. Phase I: Item extraction and development based on focus groups (N = 30) and assessment of content validity. Phase II: Assessment of quality of items and construct validity (exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and convergent validity) of data from 252 participants (aged 50-75). Phase III: Confirmatory factor analysis and assessment of the discriminant validity and reliability of the questionnaire with 127 online respondents (aged 20-70). RESULTS: In Phase I, an initial questionnaire was constructed. In Phase II, four factors were identified: Belief in divine providence, belief in personal resilience as a protective factor, belief in chance or luck, and belief in inevitable environmental or genetic factors. The factorial structure of an 18-item version that emerged in the confirmatory factor analysis had good fit indexes and reliability measures. In Phase III, the 18-item questionnaire and its factorial structure and reliability were confirmed. CONCLUSION: The findings show acceptable psychometric properties for the questionnaire. We suggest that this questionnaire should be used with an existing questionnaire that assesses the intensity of fatalistic perceptions for a more comprehensive assessment of fatalism in research and in promoting adherence to screening.