Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35710374›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2022

A comparison of behavioural models explaining cervical cancer screening uptake.

Jyoshma Preema Dsouza, Stephan Van den Broucke, Sanjay Pattanshetty, William Dhoore

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. DOST: A consolidated health behavior model that maps factors influencing cancer screening uptake.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jyoshma Preema DsouzaSchool of Public Health, Psychological Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348, Ottignies Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. jyoshmadsouza11@gmail.com.
Stephan Van den BrouckeSchool of Public Health, Psychological Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348, Ottignies Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Sanjay PattanshettyPrasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, 576104, India.
William DhooreSchool of Public Health, Psychological Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348, Ottignies Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
UCLouvain · BEManipal Academy of Higher Education · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer represents a very high burden of disease, especially in Low- and Middle-income economies. Screening is a recommended prevention method in resource-poor settings. Cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake is influenced by various psycho-social factors, most of which are included in behavioural models. Unlike demographic characteristics, these factors are modifiable. While few studies have compared these models in terms of their capacity to predict health behaviour, this study considers three health behaviour theories to assess and compare the predictors of CCS behaviour and intention.

methodsA survey was conducted among 607 sexually active women in the South Indian state of Karnataka. Data was collected regarding socio-demographic factors, health literacy, knowledge on CCS, and the socio-cognitive factors related to CCS that are represented in the Health Belief Model (HBM), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Theory of Care-Seeking Behaviour (TCSB). Logistic regression analyses tested to what extent each of the theoretical models explained cervical cancer screening (CCS) intention and regular screening behaviour, comparing the variance explained by each of the models.

resultsCCS intention was best explained by the TPB, followed by the HBM. Of the constructs included in these models, positive attitude towards the screening procedure and perceived benefits contributed most significantly to screening intention, followed by fear, anxiety or embarrassment related to the disease or screening procedure, and context specific barriers.

conclusionHealth behavioural models such as the TPB and HBM can help to identify the main socio-cognitive factors explaining the intention of women to participate in CCS. As such, they can inform interventions to target specific determinants of screening intention and behaviour, and enhance their effectiveness by addressing women's screening attitude, perceived benefits, and emotions as well as reducing context specific barriers to screening.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansIndiaIntentionSurveys and QuestionnairesCervical cancerHealth behaviourIndiaLow-middle-income countriesPsycho-social factorsScreening behaviourWomen

Identifiers

PMID35710374
PMCPMC9204900
OpenAlexW4283031527

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.