3.5. Decision Making and Coping Self-Efficacy
Frequency analysis of the SDMS (missing n = 7) yielded that very few participants (3.8%) had not thought about the preventive options yet (stage 1). Most participants (42.3%) reported that they were currently thinking about the different preventive options (stage 2), while 16.9% reported being close to making a decision (stage 3). About a third of participants (31.9%) indicated that they had already made a choice about which preventive option they were going to opt for (stage 4). While we hypothesized that those with higher coping self-efficacy would be further along in the decision-making process, univariate ANOVA yielded no significant differences between the groups regarding any of the coping self-efficacy subscales or the total scale.In terms of decisional conflict, over half of the sample (51.5%) had a total score ≥37.5, indicating the presence of decisional conflict. When investigating the subscales, 36.9% felt uninformed, 49.2% felt unclear about personal values, 46.2% felt unsupported in the decision-making process, and 60% felt uncertain about the best preventive option. As many participants had not made a final choice about the best preventive option, the subscale effective decision was not analyzed. Total decisional conflict was unrelated to coping self-efficacy, 