Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28606908›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Knowledge, facilitators and barriers to cervical cancer screening among women in Uganda: a qualitative study.

Rawlance Ndejjo, Trasias Mukama, Juliet Kiguli, David Musoke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

10 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

4 authors.

Rawlance NdejjoDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0001-9263-557X
Trasias MukamaDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Juliet KiguliDepartment of Community Health and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
David MusokeDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 087540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore community knowledge, facilitators and barriers to cervical cancer screening among women in rural Uganda so as to generate data to inform interventions.

designA qualitative study using focus group discussions and key informant interviews.

settingDiscussions and interviews carried out in the community within two districts in Eastern Uganda.

participantsTen

resultsStudy participants' knowledge about cervical cancer causes, signs and symptoms, testing methods and prevention was poor. Many participants attributed the cause of cervical cancer to use of contraception while key informants said that some believed it was due to witchcraft. Perceptions towards cervical cancer and screening were majorly positive with many participants stating that they were at risk of getting cervical cancer. The facilitators to accessing cervical cancer screening were: experiencing signs and symptoms of cervical cancer, family history of the disease and awareness of the disease/screening service. Lack of knowledge about cervical cancer and screening, health system challenges, fear of test outcome and consequences and financial constraints were barriers to cervical cancer screening.

conclusionWhereas perceptions towards cervical cancer and screening were positive, knowledge of study participants on cervical cancer was poor. To improve cervical cancer screening, effort should be focused on reducing identified barriers and enhancing facilitators.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFearFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareQualitative ResearchRural PopulationUgandaUterine Cervical Neoplasmsbarriersbeliefscervical cancerfacilitatorsknowledgeUganda

Identifiers

PMID28606908
PMCPMC5541520

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.