Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32552740›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Cervical cancer screening in rural Ethiopia: a cross- sectional knowledge, attitude and practice study.

Friederike Ruddies, Muluken Gizaw, Brhanu Teka, Sarah Thies, Andreas Wienke, Andreas M Kaufmann, Tamrat Abebe, Adamu Addissie, Eva Johanna Kantelhardt

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Friederike RuddiesInstitute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 06097, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Muluken GizawInstitute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 06097, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Brhanu TekaDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Sarah ThiesClinic for Gynecology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institutes of Health, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas WienkeInstitute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 06097, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Andreas M KaufmannClinic for Gynecology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institutes of Health, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Tamrat AbebeDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Adamu AddissieInstitute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 06097, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Eva Johanna KantelhardtInstitute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 06097, Halle (Saale), Germany. eva.kantelhardt@uk-halle.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-719X
Addis Ababa University · ETMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

Bundesministerium fuer Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung Klinikpartnerschaften 1702093Else Kroener-Fresenius-Stiftung 2017_HA03Open Access Publication Fund of the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg 05_2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. Sub- Saharan Africa has a high incidence, prevalence and mortality due to shortage and underutilization of screening facilities. This study aims to assess knowledge and attitude towards cervical cancer and its prevention, as well as practice of cervical cancer screening.

methodsThis cross-sectional community- based study was conducted in Butajira, Ethiopia in February 2018. Systematic cluster randomized sampling was used to select households from which women in the targeted age group of 30-49 years were invited to participate. Data was collected using a quantitative door to door approach. The questionnaire included socio-demographic data, obstetric history, general knowledge, risk factors, attitude and practice. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with knowledge, attitude and practice after dichotomizing the scores using the median as cut off point.

resultsThree hundred forty-two out of 354 women completed the interviewer administered questionnaire making the response rate 96.3%. 125 women (36%) were aware of cervical cancer and 14 (4.7%) knew symptoms. None of the women named HPV as a risk factor. 61% thought it was a deadly disease, 13.5% felt at risk of developing cervical cancer and 60.7% said cervical cancer is treatable. Eight women (2.3%) had previously been screened. 48.1% had a source of information concerning cervical cancer, of which 66.5% named nurses. Better knowledge was associated with 1-8 years of education (OR = 2.4; CI: 2.4-1.3), having a source of information (OR = 9.1, CI:4.0-20.6), use of contraceptives (OR = 2.3, CI: 1.3-4.0) and a higher income (OR = 1.009, CI: 1.00-1.01). Naming nurses (OR:5.0, CI:2.4-10.3), another source of information (OR = 3.3, CI:1.2-9.0), use of contraceptives (OR = 2.2, CI:1.2-3.8) and living in an urban area (OR = 3.3, CI:1.2-9.0) were associated with a positive attitude. Naming nurses (OR = 21,0, CI:10.4-42.3) and another source of information (OR = 5.8, CI:2.4-13.5) were associated with participating in cervical cancer screening.

conclusionMost women were unaware of cervical cancer, HPV-infection as a risk factor and did not feel susceptible to cervical cancer. As Health workers were the most commonly mentioned source of information, focus should be put on their further education.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAge FactorsAlphapapillomavirusCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEducational StatusEthiopiaFemaleHumansIncomeMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsRisk FactorsRural PopulationAcceptabilityCervical cancerEthiopiaHealth interventionHuman papillomavirus

Identifiers

PMID32552740
PMCPMC7298871
OpenAlexW3036488586

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.