Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33176743›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

The role of knowledge, risk perceptions, and cues to action among Iranian women concerning cervical cancer and screening: a qualitative exploration.

Rahim Taghizadeh Asl, Liesbeth Van Osch, Nanne De Vries, Kazem Zendehdel, Mohsen Shams, Fatemeh Zarei, Hein De Vries

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Evaluation of barriers to cervical cancer screening in Georgia.Central European journal of public health · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Rahim Taghizadeh AslCancer Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Keshavarz Blvd, Tehran, Iran. taghizadehasl@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4678-0391
Liesbeth Van OschDepartment of Health Promotion, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nanne De VriesDepartment of Health Promotion, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Kazem ZendehdelCancer Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Keshavarz Blvd, Tehran, Iran.
Mohsen ShamsSchool of Health, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Pasdaran 15 Blvd., Yasuj, Iran.
Fatemeh ZareiDepartment of Health Education and Health Promotion, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University(TMU), P.O. Box: 14115-331, Tehran, Iran.
Hein De VriesDepartment of Health Promotion, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services 92-04-51-24890
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIran has a low incidence but higher rate of death from cervical cancer (CC). The country is in the process of implementing an organized screening program including HPV testing and cytology. Studies show high dropout in continued testing among eligible women. This qualitative study aimed to explore women's awareness regarding CC and CC testing and the role of knowledge, perceived risk, and cues to action in this process.

methodThrough a qualitative study based on the Framework Method, we recruited 81 women aged 25-65 who participated in 15 focus group discussions (FGDs) and two in-depth interviews in Tehran. The interviewees were selected purposefully during January to May 2015 from households belonging to different socioeconomic classes until data saturation. The data were acquired through 11 open-ended questions and 32 related probe questions. All interviews were transcribed and independently analyzed by two researchers (Kappa and agreement testing respectively: 0.77, 97.11%).

resultsThe coded texts were categorized under three themes and 13 subthemes. The three thematic areas referred to knowledge, cues to action, and perceived risks regarding CC and screening. The results showed that women had limited and unspecified knowledge about CC and screening, compounded by misconceptions regarding infection and cancer prevention measures. Social and cultural barriers hindered proper communication between health system/providers and clients and within communities on subjects related to CC and screening. The perceived risk of getting CC was low because of overestimating the role of hereditary factors for CC, difficulty in differentiating between cancer and sexually transmitted infections (STI), and the absence of visible symptoms.

conclusionThe results indicate a strong need to invest more efforts to improve health education and communication in the current national health program to promote awareness of the need to screen for CC through, for example, establishing correct knowledge and risk perceptions among women. In addition, this intervention should address women's social environment in order to prevent misconceptions being communicated to women.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedCuesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansIranMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPerceptionQualitative ResearchAwarenessCervical cancer (CC)Cues to actionI-change modelPerceptionQualitative study

Identifiers

PMID33176743
PMCPMC7656771

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.