ArticleBMC women's health2021
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding cervical cancer screening among women in metropolitan Lima, Peru: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sociocultural factors influencing women's adherence to colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Perspectives of women and healthcare providers on facilitators and barriers to cervical cancer screening in the rural Kilimanjaro region Tanzania: a qualitative study.Global health action · 2026Article
- Knowledge and Perception of Cervical Cancer and Pap-Smear Screening Among Antenatal Women in Ogun State, Nigeria.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Cultural and religious influences on parental knowledge of HPV infection and female vaccination in Egypt: a national cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Uptake of cervical cancer screening and its associated factors among women of reproductive age in Kericho County.PloS one · 2026Article
- Cervical cancer screening uptake questionnaire (CCSTQ) for women: instrument development and validation.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Public knowledge, attitudes, practices, and key influencing factors regarding cancer screening in Yemen.Conflict and health · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and associated factors of cervical cancer screening among women in Debre Markos town, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Knowledge and attitudes towards cervical cancer and screening among migrant women: a qualitative study in Portugal.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article
- Ethnic inequalities in coverage and use of women's cancer screening in Peru.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Factors associated with utilization of cervical cancer screening services among HIV-positive women aged 18 to 49 years at Lira regional referral hospital, Northern Uganda.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Women's knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding cervical precancerous lesions: a cross-sectional study in Beijing, China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Using Delphi method to develop Chinese women's cervical cancer screening intention scale based on planned behavior theory.BMC women's health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths among women of reproductive age in Peru. Screening and early identification of pre-cancerous lesions are a cornerstone of the cervical cancer prevention strategy. Yet, there is limited literature on barriers to screening among Peruvian women. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to examine Peruvian women's knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding cervical cancer screening and identify possible reasons for the gap between knowledge and screening.
methodsThe study was conducted in metropolitan Lima from June-August 2019. We purposefully recruited 12 women who had previously been screened, and 12 who had never been screened for cervical cancer. The women completed a 40-question knowledge and attitude survey and an in-depth interview about barriers to screening. Descriptive analysis was used to calculate a knowledge and attitude score and qualitative analysis was guided by the Health Belief Model constructs.
resultsPreviously screened participants had greater knowledge of cervical cancer symptoms, risk factors, and prevention (mean score = 28.08, S.D. = 4.18) compared to participants who had never been screened (mean score = 21.25, S.D. = 6.35). Both groups described lack of priority and embarrassment as barriers to cervical cancer screening. For participants who had never been screened before, major barriers included the fear of a cancer diagnosis and lack of information about screening services. Pregnancy, unusual gynecological symptoms and encouragement from friends and family were cues to action for participants seeking screening. Most participants in both groups recognized the benefits of getting screened for cervical cancer. Being previously screened increased participants' self-efficacy for engaging in screening behaviors again. Misconceptions regarding screening procedures and cervical cancer were also noted as barriers for participants accessing screening services.
conclusionsImproving knowledge and awareness about cervical cancer and screening programs may improve screening behaviors among women. Targeting women who have never been screened before and addressing their fears and concerns around embarrassment may be other areas for intervention. Misconceptions that deter women from screening services are an important issue that should be addressed in order to increase the number of women who get timely screenings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.