ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2022
A cross-sectional study on assessment of perceived threat to cervical cancer using health belief model among women in a slum area of Kolkata.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with cervical cancer screening uptake among women aged 30-49 years of Bhanu Municipality, Tanahun, Nepal: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- A scoping review of evidence on routine cervical cancer screening in South Asia: investigating factors affecting adoption and implementation.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Development of mobile application for cervical cancer screening in women: Protocol of a multi-phase study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Using social marketing theory as a framework for understanding barriers and facilitators of human papillomavirus screening in women: A qualitative study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the implementation of various cervical cancer preventive strategies by the Government of India, there is a scarcity of knowledge and consequent low utilization of cervical cancer screening services among women in India. This contributes to the burden of cervical cancer among Indian women. This study was conducted to assess perceived threat-regarding cervical cancer among women and to identify its explanatory factors in a slum area of Kolkata. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 192 adult women from May to September 2019 in Kolkata. The multistage sampling technique was used using a structured schedule. Perceived threat to cervical cancer was measured using a composite score including perceived susceptibility and perceived severity constructs of the health belief model. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression model using SPSS software version 16.
resultsOverall, 22.9% of the participants had satisfactory levels of perceived threat to cervical cancer. Statistically significant association was found between unsatisfactory levels of perceived threat with reproductive age group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.01;
conclusionThe study population had very unsatisfactory levels of perceived threat to cervical cancer. Thus, to increase cervical cancer screening uptake among women, it is necessary to tailor robust behavior change communication campaigns to increase the perception of susceptibility and severity, thereby increasing the perception of threat of cervical cancer among women.
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.