Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33270792›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Predictors of cervical cancer screening uptake in two districts of Central Uganda.

Alone Isabirye, Martin Kayitale Mbonye, Betty Kwagala

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  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
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.

Alone IsabiryeDepartment of Population Studies, School of Statistics and planning, College of Business and Management Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0003-3871-7632
Martin Kayitale MbonyeDepartment of Population Studies, School of Statistics and planning, College of Business and Management Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Betty KwagalaDepartment of Population Studies, School of Statistics and planning, College of Business and Management Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uganda's cervical cancer age standardized incidence rate is four times the global estimate. Although Uganda's ministry of health recommends screening for women aged 25-49 years, the screening remains low even in the most developed region (Central Uganda) of the country. This study examined the demographic, social, and economic predictors of cervical cancer screening in Central Uganda with the aim of informing targeted interventions to improve screening. The cross-sectional survey was conducted in Wakiso and Nakasongola districts in Central Uganda. A total of 845 women age 25-49 years participated in the study. Data were analyzed at bivariate and multivariate levels to examine the predictors of CC (cervical cancer) screening. Only 1 in 5 women (20.6%) had ever screened for cervical cancer. Our multivariate logistic regression model indicated that wealth index, source of information, and knowledge about CC and CC screening were significantly associated with cervical cancer screening. The odds of cervical cancer screening were higher among rich women compared with poor women [AOR = 1.93 (95%CI: 1.06-3.42), p = 0.031)], receiving information from health providers compared with radios [AOR = 4.14 (95%CI: 2.65-6.48), p<0.001, and being more knowledgeable compared with being less knowledgeable about CC and CC screening [AOR = 2.46 (95%CI: 1.49-3.37), p<0.001)]. Overall cervical cancer screening uptake in central Uganda was found to be low. The findings of the study indicate that women from a wealthy background, who had been sensitized by health workers and with high knowledge about CC and CC screening had higher odds of having ever screened compared with their counterparts. Efforts to increase uptake of screening must address disparities in access to resources and knowledge.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUgandaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33270792
PMCPMC7714132

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.