ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2023
Cervical Cancer Screening Promotion in Eswatini: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Community Health Workers' Perceived Barriers.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-based interventions for non-communicable diseases in Africa: a scoping review of scope, effectiveness, and implementation factors.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Predictors of survival among cervical cancer patients in Swaziland (Eswatini): A population-based analysis in a resource-limited setting (2016-2024).PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Cervical Lesion Among Married Women With Low Socioeconomic Status: A Study Based on a Cervical Cancer Screening Program.International journal of public health · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study examined community health workers' perceived barriers to discussing cervical cancer screening with women eligible for screening and explored factors associated with endorsing a greater number of barriers. Additional exploratory analyses assessed factors associated with endorsing a specific barrier.
methodsA telephone survey of 172 community health workers was conducted between July and August 2021. Descriptive analyses were performed to assess participants' socio-demographic and service-related characteristics. Regression analyses were used to assess: the association between socio-demographic characteristics and 1) endorsing a greater number of barriers and 2) endorsing a specific barrier or combination of barriers.
resultsCommonly endorsed barriers included: perceived inability to convince women to undertake screening, inadequate time to discuss screening, lack of confidence to talk to older women about screening, and women's lack of interest in screening advice. Community health workers with at least some secondary school level education endorsed 40% more barriers than those without secondary school level education. Community health workers in Lubombo and Shiselweni endorsed 47% and 35% fewer barriers than community health workers in Hhohho. Community health workers in Lubombo were less likely to endorse: 1) barrier combination consisting of 'inability to talk to women in a way that will convince them to undertake cervical cancer screening' and 'lack of confidence to talk to older women about screening', and 2) barrier combination consisting of 'thinking that cervical cancer screening is not important' and 'thinking that health education is not effective in promoting cervical cancer screening'.
conclusionImprovements to the training of community health workers with respect to screening-related health promotion may be useful in addressing most of the identified barriers.
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.