ArticleBMC women's health2024
Factors influencing the uptake and utilization of cervical cancer screening services among women attending public health centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: mixed methods study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators of adherence to cervical cancer screening follow-up among women living with HIV in South Ethiopia: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening and Associated Factors Among Women of Reproductive Age in Sidama Regional State of Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Cervical cancer screening and its associated factors among women of reproductive age in senegal: evidence from 2023 continuous demographic and health survey in Senegal.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Mass Media Exposure and Cervical Cancer Screening in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multi-Country Cross-Sectional Analysis.Health science reports · 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is the second cause of cancer deaths among Ethiopian women. Despite multifaceted government efforts, the uptake and utilization of cervical cancer screening remain very low. This study aimed to assess factors influencing the uptake and utilization of cervical cancer screening at public health centers in Addis Ababa.
methodsA convergent parallel mixed-method study was employed to collect data through eight focus group discussions with 66 women purposively recruited from outpatient clinics, and cross-sectional face-to-face exit interviews with 80 women attending cervical cancer clinics in four high-patient volume health centers. The group interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed in Amharic, translated into English, and a thematic analysis approach was used in the analysis. Exit interview data were collected using a structured questionnaire in the Open Data Kit tool on an android tablet. STATA version 17 was used for descriptive and inferential data analyses. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe majority of focus group discussion participants had lack of knowledge of cervical cancer and its screening services. The major barriers to the uptake of screening were inadequate public awareness, fear of the procedure, embarrassment, provider's gender, lack of male partner support, and childcare. Women aged 40 years and above were 13.9 times more likely to utilize cervical cancer screening than those under 30 years (AOR = 13.85; 95% CI: 1.40, 136.74). There was a strong preference for a female provider (AOR = 7.07; 95% CI: 1.53, 32.75) among women screened after attending antiretroviral therapy clinics and those screened due to abnormal vaginal bleeding than women referred from family planning clinics (AOR = 6.87; 95% CI: 1.02, 46.44). Safety of screening was negatively associated with women aged 30-39 (AOR = 0.045; 95% CI: 0.003, 0.696), and those who attended primary education, and secondary education and above, (AOR = 0.016; 95% CI: 0.001, 0.262), and (AOR = 0.054; 95% CI: 0.004, 0.724), respectively.
conclusionsThe study identified low public awareness, inadequate provider preference, safety concerns, and poor male partner support for cervical cancer screening. We recommend the decision-makers enhance public messages, maintain provider choices, ensure safety, and engage males to improve the uptake and utilization of cervical cancer screening.
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.