ArticleBMC cancer2024
Promoting breast health among female adolescents: a comparative analysis of the effects of two didactic tools on knowledge and practice regarding breast self-examination in Southwest Nigeria.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTeaching effective methods for breast self-examination (BSE) to adolescent females is essential for promoting early detection and improving outcomes in breast cancer management. This study therefore aimed to compare two pedagogical tools for teaching BSE among adolescent females.
methodsA quasi-experimental design with a group for pre- and post-intervention tests was adopted. The sample included 970 female senior secondary school class I-III students. The Yamane formula was used to determine a sample size of 276. Pre- and post-intervention data were collected using an observation checklist for practice and a validated questionnaire with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.76 for knowledge of BSE. A proportionate stratified random sampling technique was used to determine the number of participants for each group. Among the 276 participants, 161 were taught the traditional method (TM), i.e., a lecture, and 115 were taught using the modern method (MM) by watching a podcast that contained BSE lessons. Post-intervention data were collected after six weeks. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics at a 5% level of significance to compare the effectiveness of the methods.
resultsThe findings of this study showed that the participants' mean ages across the two methods were 15.49 ± 1.65 and 15.43 ± 1.40 years for the traditional method (TM) and modern method (MM), respectively. Pre-intervention mean BSE knowledge scores in both the TM and MM groups were 8.19 ± 3.17 and 8.31 ± 2.39, respectively, and BSE practice scores were 7.17 ± 2.48 and 6.44 ± 2.75, respectively. Post-intervention knowledge mean scores in both the TM and MM groups increased to 13.75 ± 4.09 and 16.92 ± 2.91, respectively, and post-intervention practice scores increased to 13.06 ± 2.74 and 15.68 ± 3.12, respectively.
conclusionThis study revealed that both teaching methods were effective at teaching breast self-examination among female adolescents; nevertheless, modern methods are more effective at teaching breast self-examination among female adolescents.
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.