Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34243778›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2021

"Cervical cancer screening: awareness is not enough". Understanding barriers to screening among women in West Cameroon-a qualitative study using focus groups.

Alida Manoëla Datchoua Moukam, Muriel Samartha Embolo Owono, Bruno Kenfack, Pierre Vassilakos, Patrick Petignat, Jessica Sormani, Nicole C Schmidt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 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. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Alida Manoëla Datchoua MoukamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Maternal Heath, University of Dschang, Dschang District Hospital, Dschang, Cameroon.
Muriel Samartha Embolo OwonoFaculty of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon.
Bruno KenfackDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Maternal Heath, University of Dschang, Dschang District Hospital, Dschang, Cameroon.
Pierre VassilakosGynecology Division, Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Patrick PetignatGynecology Division, Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jessica SormaniGynecology Division, Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nicole C SchmidtGynecology Division, Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. nicole.schmidt@ksh-m.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0428-0893

Funding

GRSSGO GRSSGO-PJH-2020-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women in sub-Saharan countries, constituting a major public health concern. In Cameroon, cervical cancer ranks as the second most common type of cancer among women and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, mainly due to the lack of prevention.

objectivesOur first and main objective was to understand the barriers affecting women's decision-making process regarding participation in a cervical cancer screening program in the Dschang district (West Cameroon). Second, we aimed to explore the acceptability and perception of a single-visit approach (screen and treat).

methodsA qualitative study using focus groups (FGs) was conducted from February to March 2020. Female participants aged between 30 and 49 years and their male partners were invited to participate. Thematic analysis was used, and barriers were classified according to the three-delay model of Thaddeus and Maine.

resultsIn total, six FGs with 43 participants (31 women and 12 men) were conducted. The most important barriers were lack of health literacy, low accessibility of the program (in respect to cost and distance), and disrespectful treatment by healthcare workers.

conclusionsOur study identified three needs: (1) enhancing health literacy; (2) improving the delivery of cervical cancer screening in rural areas; and (3) providing training for healthcare providers and community healthcare workers to improve patient-provider-communication. Trial registration Ethical Cantonal Board of Geneva, Switzerland (CCER, N°2017-0110 and CER-amendment n°3) and Cameroonian National Ethics Committee for Human Health Research (N°2018/07/1083/CE/CNERSH/SP). NCT: 03757299.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCameroonEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchBarriersCervical cancerHealth literacyPreventionSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID34243778
PMCPMC8268254

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.