ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2022
Ghanaian women's perception on cervical cancer threat, severity, and the screening benefits: A qualitative study at Shai Osudoku District, Ghana.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical precancer screening recommendations and implications among women aged 60/65 years and older in Ghana.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A critical review and analysis of the context, current burden, and application of policy to improve cancer equity in Ghana.International journal for equity in health · 2023Review
- Female students' perspectives on cervical cancer screening inclusion in pre-admission university requirements in Ghana.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Cervical is one of the topmost causes of fatalities worldwide with mortality and incidence rates highest in sub-Saharan Africa including Ghana. The knowledge about cervical cancer threat and severity has not been extensively studied in most developing and developed countries of which Ghana is not exempted. The study, therefore, aimed to explore the views of women about cervical cancer threat, severity, and the benefits of cervical cancer screening in rural communities in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Study design: Qualitative exploratory descriptive design was used to purposively sample 17 participants. Methods: The data collection tool was pretested among 4 women from women to ensure its trustworthiness. Participants were interviewed face to face using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were recorded with audio recorders, transcribed verbatim and content analyzed. Ethics approval was obtained from Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research Institutional Review Board (NMIMR-IRB). Results: Findings of this study discovered that participants perceived Cervical cancer (CC) as serious on the basis that it is causing death of most women and lead to depression, isolation and thoughts of suicide, and poor sexual performance. Almost all the women in this study were aware that cervical cancer screening (CCS) is beneficial in the early detection of cervical cancer and protecting women against cervical cancer in order to reduce the mortalities associated with cervical cancer. In conclusion, there is high perceived severity to CC and benefits of CCS and hence other studies could be done to assess the uptake of the screening and willingness to participate in the screening among these participants. It is expected that this high perceived severity and benefits will translate into their practices of CCS and hence other researchers could explore this phenomenon.
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.