Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886513›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Health care access dimensions and cervical cancer screening in South Africa: analysis of the world health survey.

Tomi F Akinyemiju, Jasmine A McDonald, Paula M Lantz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tomi F AkinyemijuDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. tomiakin@uab.edu.
Jasmine A McDonaldDepartment of Epidemiology, Columbia University Medical Center; Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA. jam2319@columbia.edu.
Paula M LantzDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Milken Institute School of Public Health, the George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. plantz@gwu.edu.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · USMilken Institute · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

Training Program in Cancer-Related Population SciencesR25CA094061 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI NEUGUT, ALFRED I. · 2002 to 2016
$5.9M
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY/BIOSTATISTICS/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCEST32CA009529 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI NEUGUT, ALFRED I. · 1985 to 2012
$4.3M
NCI NIH HHS 2-R25-CA-094061NCI NIH HHS 5T32CA09529NCI NIH HHS R25 CA094061NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer mortality among women in sub-Saharan Africa. Recent recommendations for cervical cancer primary prevention highlight HPV vaccination, and secondary prevention through screening. However, few studies have examined the different dimensions of health care access, and how these may influence screening behavior, especially in the context of clinical preventive services.

methodsUsing the 2003 South Africa World Health Survey, we determined the prevalence of cervical cancer screening with pelvic examinations and/or pap smears among women ages 18 years and older. We also examined the association between multiple dimensions of health care access and screening focusing on the affordability, availability, accessibility, accommodation and acceptability components.

resultsAbout 1 in 4 (25.3%, n = 65) of the women who attended a health care facility in the past year got screened for cervical cancer. Screened women had a significantly higher number of health care providers available compared with unscreened women (mean 125 vs.12, p-value <0.001), and were more likely to have seen a medical doctor compared with nurses/midwives (73.1% vs. 45.9%, p-value = 0.003). In multivariable analysis, every unit increase in the number of health care providers available increased the likelihood of screening by 1% (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.01). In addition, seeing a nurse/midwife compared to a medical doctor reduced the likelihood of screening by 87% (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.42).

conclusionsOur findings suggest that cost issues (affordability component) and other patient level factors (captured in the acceptability, accessibility and accommodation components) were less important predictors of screening compared with availability of physicians in this population. Meeting cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination goals will require significant investments in the health care workforce, improving health care worker density in poor and rural areas, and improved training of the existing workforce.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAfrica South of the SaharaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHealth SurveysHealth WorkforceHumansMiddle AgedPrimary PreventionSouth AfricaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsWomen's Health

Identifiers

PMID25886513
PMCPMC4404041
OpenAlexW1996044851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.