ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024
Individual-level determinants of breast and cervical cancer screening and early testing in two regionally representative urban Indian populations.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Region-specific data on individual factors associated with uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening or early testing in diverse Indian populations are limited. Aim: To assess the prevalence and individual determinants of uptake of breast and/or cervical cancer screening or testing among women aged 30-69 years in regionally representative populations of two large Indian cities: New Delhi and Chennai. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the cross-sectional data (2016-2017) nested within the Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia cohort, established in 2010-2011 with 12,271 participants (5365 in New Delhi; 6906 in Chennai). Among 3310 women participants, we evaluated the associations of demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle, medical, psychosocial, and reproductive factors with breast and/or cervical cancer screening or testing using multivariable logistic regression models with results expressed as adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: At any point prior to 2016-2017, 193 women self-reported having undergone evaluations for breast and/or cervical cancer. The reasons for evaluation were 'general examination' or 'physician's advice' (i.e., screening) or 'being symptomatic' (i.e., early testing). The overall prevalence was 5.8% for screening or testing and 2.5% for screening alone. Formal education (OR:1.88; 95% CI:1.12-3.15), high monthly household income (OR:2.27; 95% CI:1.59-3.25) and less 'fear-of-judgement' (OR:1.65; 95% CI:1.05-2.58) were positively associated with screening or testing uptake. When screening uptake was analysed separately, the results were generally similar. Conclusion: Our findings may have important implications for interventions at community-level (e.g., reducing 'fear-of-judgement', increasing awareness to screening programs and early symptoms) and health-system level (e.g., opportunistic 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.