Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34983586›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2022

Perceptions of cervical cancer care among Ethiopian women and their providers: a qualitative study.

Sahai Burrowes, Sarah Jane Holcombe, Cheru Tesema Leshargie, Alexandra Hernandez, Anthony Ho, Molly Galivan, Fatuma Youb, Eiman Mahmoud

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Factors, including patient education, that impact cancer treatment adherence in low- and middle-income African countries: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sahai BurrowesTouro University California, Vallejo, CA, USA. sahai.burrowes@tu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4944-402X
Sarah Jane HolcombeBill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
Cheru Tesema LeshargieDebre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.
Alexandra HernandezTouro University California, Vallejo, CA, USA.
Anthony HoTouro University California, Vallejo, CA, USA.
Molly GalivanTouro University California, Vallejo, CA, USA.
Fatuma YoubTouro University California, Vallejo, CA, USA.
Eiman MahmoudTouro University California, Vallejo, CA, USA.
Touro University California · USDebre Markos University · ETGates Foundation · US

Funding

Touro University California IRAP-2016/17
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among Ethiopian women, killing an estimated 4700 women each year. As the government rolls out the country's first national cancer control strategy, information on patient and provider experiences in receiving and providing cervical cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment is critical.

methodsThis qualitative study aimed to assess the availability of cervical cancer care; explore care barriers and sources of delay; and describe women's and providers' perceptions and experiences of care. We analyzed data from 45 informants collected at 16 health centers, district hospitals and referral hospitals in East Gojjam Zone and a support center in Addis Ababa. Thirty providers and ten women receiving care were interviewed, and five women in treatment or post-treatment participated in a focus group discussion. Deductive and inductive codes were used to thematically analyze data.

resultsProviders lacked equipment and space to screen and treat patients and only 16% had received in-service cervical cancer training. Consequently, few facilities provided screening or preventative treatment. Patients reported low perceptions of risk, high stigma, a lack of knowledge about cervical cancer, and delayed care initiation. All but one patient sought care only when she became symptomatic, and, pre-diagnosis, only half of the patients knew about cervical cancer. Even among those aware of cervical cancer, many assumed they were not at risk because they were not sexually active. Misdiagnosis was another common source of delay experienced by half of the patients. Once diagnosed, women faced multiple-month waits for referrals, and, once in treatment, broken equipment and shortages of hospital beds resulted in additional delays. Barriers to therapeutic treatment included a lack of housing and travel funds. Patient-provider communication of cancer diagnosis was often lacking.

conclusionsIn-service provider training should be intensified and should include discussions of cervical cancer symptoms. Better distribution of screening and diagnostic supplies to lower-level facilities and better maintenance of treatment equipment at tertiary facilities are also a priority. Expanded cervical cancer health education should focus on stigma reduction and emphasize a broad, wide-spread risk of cervical cancer.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEthiopiaFemaleFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchCervical cancerEthiopiaPatient experienceQuality of careStigma

Identifiers

PMID34983586
PMCPMC8725313
OpenAlexW4206300376

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.