Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33927761›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer epidemiology2021

Knowledge and Practice on Breast Self-Examination and Associated Factors among Summer Class Social Science Undergraduate Female Students in the University of Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia.

Muhabaw Shumye Mihret, Temesgen Worku Gudayu, Abera Shiferaw Abebe, Emebet Gebru Tarekegn, Solomon Ketemaw Abebe, Mosina Aminu Abduselam, Tejitu Dereje Shiferaw, Genet Worku Kebede

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Muhabaw Shumye MihretDepartment of Clinical Midwifery, School of Midwifery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4595-5578
Temesgen Worku GudayuDepartment of Clinical Midwifery, School of Midwifery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0699-3210
Abera Shiferaw AbebeBlue Nile College, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Emebet Gebru TarekegnUniversity of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Solomon Ketemaw AbebeAmbagiyorgis Health Center, Amhara Regional Health Bureau, Ethiopia.
Mosina Aminu AbduselamMussiebamb Health Center, Amhara Regional Health Bureau, Ethiopia.
Tejitu Dereje ShiferawUniversity of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Genet Worku KebedeUniversity of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
University of Gondar · ETAmhara Regional Health Bureau · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is a global health concern and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among women. Early detection of breast cancer contributes to timely linkage to care and reduction of complications associated with breast cancer. In this context, breast self-examination is helpful to detect breast abnormalities particularly in settings with poor access to healthcare for clinical breast examination and mammography. Thus, all women in such settings are highly encouraged to perform breast self-examination regularly, and shreds of evidences are compulsory in this perspective. In the study setting, there was a scarcity of evidence on breast self-examination. Therefore, this study is aimed at assessing knowledge and practice on breast self-examination and its associated factors among summer class female students of social science at Maraki Campus, University of Gondar, Ethiopia.

methodsAn institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted from July 01 to September 15/2018. A total of 398 female summer students were included in the study. A simple random sampling technique was utilized to select the study participants, and interviewer-administered structured questionnaires were employed to collect the data. The data were then entered into Epi info version 7.0, and analysis was done by SPSS version 20.0. A bivariable and multivariable logistic regression model was fitted, and the level of significance was declared based on adjusted odds ratio with its 95% CI and a

resultThe proportion of students having a good knowledge and practice of breast self-examination was found to be 27.6% (95% CI: 22.9, 32) and 17.4% (95% CI: 13.8, 21.6), respectively. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, urban residency (AOR = 2.50; 95% CI: 1.27, 4.94) and discussion with someone on breast self-examination (AOR = 4.57; 95% CI: 2.42, 8.65) were predictors of good knowledge, whereas family history of breast cancer (AOR = 7.14; 95% CI: 1.75, 25), discussion with someone on breast self-examination (AOR = 3.85; 95% CI: 1.82, 8.33), and good knowledge on breast self -examination (AOR = 12.02; 95% CI: 5.97, 24.20) had been significantly associated with breast self-examination practice.

conclusionIn this study, the proportion of students with good knowledge and practice towards breast self-examination was lower than most of the studies done so far. The predictors of breast self-examination are related to lack of information. Thus, awareness creation on breast self-examination would be helpful in this context.

Identifiers

PMID33927761
PMCPMC8053048
OpenAlexW3152771595

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.