Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35906053›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Towards a cervical cancer-free future: women's healthcare decision making and cervical cancer screening uptake in sub-Saharan Africa.

Joshua Okyere, Richard Gyan Aboagye, Abdul-Aziz Seidu, Bernard Yeboah-Asiamah Asare, Bupe Mwamba, Bright Opoku Ahinkorah

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Joshua OkyereDepartment of Population and Health, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana joshuaokyere54@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4080-7522
Richard Gyan AboagyeDepartment of Family and Community Health, Fred N. Binka School of Public Health, University of Health and Allied Sciences, Ho, Ghana.ORCID 0000-0002-3498-2909
Abdul-Aziz SeiduCollege of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9734-9054
Bernard Yeboah-Asiamah AsareHealth Psychology, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1381-4981
Bupe MwambaCentre for Midwifery, Family and Child Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6607-2387
Bright Opoku AhinkorahSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7415-895X
University of Technology Sydney · AUTakoradi Technical University · GHUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Cape Coast · GHUniversity of Health and Allied Sciences · GH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe investigated the association between women's healthcare decision making and cervical cancer screening uptake in sub-Saharan Africa.

designSecondary data from the Demographic and Health Surveys of six countries in sub-Saharan Africa were used. We employed multilevel binary logistic regression modelling.

settingSub-Saharan Africa.

participantsWomen aged 15-49 years in Benin (n=5282), Côte d'Ivoire (n=1925), Cameroon (n=7558), Kenya (n=6696), Namibia (n=1990) and Zimbabwe (n=5006). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cervical cancer screening uptake.

resultsThe overall prevalence of cervical cancer screening across the six sub-Saharan African countries was 13.4%. Compared with women whose healthcare decisions were made solely by husbands/partners/someone else, the likelihood of cervical cancer screening uptake was significantly higher among women who took healthcare decisions in consultation with their husbands/partners (aOR=1.38; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59), but highest among those who made healthcare decisions alone (aOR=1.66; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.91). Women aged between 40 and 45 years (aOR=5.18; 95% CI 3.15 to 8.52), those with higher education (aOR=2.13; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.88), those who had ever heard of cervical cancer (aOR=32.74; 95% CI 20.02 to 53.55), read newspaper or magazine at least once a week (aOR=2.11; 95% CI 1.83 to 2.44), listened to the radio at least once a week (aOR=1.35; 95% CI1.18 to 1.52) and those in households with richest wealth index (aOR=1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.00) had significantly higher odds of screening for cervical cancer compared to their counterparts.

conclusionWomen who are able to make autonomous healthcare decisions and those who practice shared decision making are more likely to uptake cervical cancer screening. Therefore, policy interventions should focus on empowering women to be able to take autonomous healthcare decisions or shared decision making while targeting subpopulations (ie, multiparous and rural-dwelling women, as well as those in other religious affiliations aside from Christianity) that are less likely to uptake cervical cancer screening. Also, the radio and print media could be leveraged in raising awareness about cervical cancer screening to accelerate cervical cancer screening uptake in sub-Saharan Africa.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansKenyaMiddle AgedCancer painPublic healthQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35906053
PMCPMC9345091
OpenAlexW4288739401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.