ArticlePLOS global public health2022
Cervical cancer screening in a population of black South African women with high HIV prevalence: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adapting a United States cancer education programme for South Africa: A participatory, culturally tailored approach using Card's Seven-Step adaptation framework.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Determinants of cervical cancer screening uptake in Lesotho: evidence from 2024 Demographic and Health Survey data.BMC public health · 2025Article
- High unmet needs for cervical cancer screening among women living with HIV in six African countries: A population-based study.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2025Article
- High burden of abnormal cervical smears in South African primary health care: health programmes implications.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening Among Rural Women in Zimbabwe.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer is largely preventable through early detection, but screening uptake remains low among black women in South Africa. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and factors associated with cervical cancer screening in the past 10 years among black African women in primary health care (PHC) clinics, in Gauteng Province, South Africa. This was a cross-sectional study involving 672 consecutively recruited black women at cervical cancer screening programs in PHC clinics between 2017 and 2020. An interviewer-administered questionnaire covered socio-demographics, HIV status, sexual history, cervical cancer risk factors knowledge, and screening behaviours in the past 10 years. The mean age of participants was 38 years. More than half (63%) were aged 30-49 years. Most completed high school education (75%), were unemployed (61%), single (60%), and HIV positive (48%). Only 285 (42.4%) of participants reported screening for cervical cancer in the past 10 years. Of participants that reported receiving information on screening, 27.6% (n = 176) and 13.97% (n = 89) did so from healthcare facilities and community platforms respectively. Participants aged 30 years or more were more likely to report for cervical cancer screening as compared to other categories in the past 10 years. The study found low cervical cancer screening prevalence. This calls for health education campaigns and prevention strategies that would target individual patients' contexts and stages of behavioral change. Such strategies must also consider socio-demographic and clinical correlates of cervical cancer screening and promote better integration into PHC services in South Africa.
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.