Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28137260›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2017

Women's knowledge and attitudes towards cervical cancer prevention: a cross sectional study in Eastern Uganda.

Trasias Mukama, Rawlance Ndejjo, Angele Musabyimana, Abdullah Ali Halage, David Musoke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Trasias MukamaDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.
Rawlance NdejjoDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda. rndejjo@musph.ac.ug.ORCID 0000-0001-9263-557X
Angele MusabyimanaDepartment of Community Health, School of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.
Abdullah Ali HalageDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.
David MusokeDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.
Makerere University · UGUniversity of Rwanda · RW

Funding

Wellcome Trust 087540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among women in Uganda, often due to late disease diagnosis. Early screening for the cancer has been shown to be the most effective measure against the disease. Studies conducted elsewhere have reported the lack of awareness and negative attitudes towards cervical cancer as barriers to early screening. This study assessed the knowledge and attitudes of Ugandan women about cervical cancer prevention with the aim of informing prevention and control interventions.

methodsThis study was conducted in Bugiri and Mayuge districts in eastern Uganda. It was a cross-sectional community based survey and collected data by means of a questionnaire. A total of 900 women aged 25-49 years participated in the study. Women's knowledge and attitudes towards cervical cancer prevention were assessed and scored. Data were analysed using STATA 12.0 software. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to establish the relationship between knowledge levels and demographic characteristics.

resultsMost (794; 88.2%) of the respondents had heard about cervical cancer, the majority (557; 70.2%) having received information from radio and 120 (15.1%) from health facilities. Most women (562; 62.4%) knew at least one preventive measure and (743; 82.6%) at least one symptom or sign of the disease. The majority (684; 76.0%) of respondents perceived themselves to be at risk of cervical cancer, a disease most (852; 94.6%) thought to be very severe. Living in peri-urban areas (AOR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.15 - 2.28), urban areas (AOR = 3.64, 95% CI: 2.14 - 6.19), having a higher monthly income (AOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37 - 0.68) and having had an HIV test (AOR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.34-2.96) were associated with level of knowledge about cervical cancer prevention.

conclusionAlthough general knowledge about cervical cancer prevention was relatively high among women, and attitudes mostly encouraging, specific knowledge about screening was low. There were also undesirable perceptions and beliefs regarding cervical cancer among respondents. There is therefore need for more education campaigns to bridge identified knowledge gaps, and scale up of cervical cancer screening services to all women to increase service uptake.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInformation Seeking BehaviorPerceptionAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth EducationHumansImmunization ProgramsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPsychometricsRisk FactorsRural PopulationSexually Transmitted DiseasesSurveys and QuestionnairesAttitudesCervical cancerKnowledgePreventionRuralScreeningUganda

Identifiers

PMID28137260
PMCPMC5282746
OpenAlexW2581260461

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.