Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39421823›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

The prevalence and predictors of clinical breast cancer screening in Sub-Saharan African countries: a multilevel analysis of Demographic Health Survey.

Aklilu Habte Hailegebireal, Habtamu Mellie Bizuayehu, Biruk Bogale Wolde, Lire Lemma Tirore, Beshada Zerfu Woldegeorgis, Gizachew Ambaw Kassie, Yordanos Sisay Asgedom

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Aklilu Habte HailegebirealSchool of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wachemo University, Hosanna, Ethiopia.
Habtamu Mellie BizuayehuFaculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Biruk Bogale WoldeDepartment of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Mizan Tepi University, Mizan, Ethiopia.
Lire Lemma TiroreDepartment of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wachemo University, Hosanna, Ethiopia.
Beshada Zerfu WoldegeorgisDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia.
Gizachew Ambaw KassieDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia.
Yordanos Sisay AsgedomDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite a higher rate of breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), efforts to treat the disease through breast cancer screening are suboptimal, resulting in late diagnosis of breast cancer and poor outcomes. Several studies have been conducted in SSA countries about screening uptake, yet they addressed country or sub-country level data and did not consider both individual and beyond-individual factors related to screening. Hence, pooled prevalence as well as multilevel correlates of screening in the region is sparse, which have been addressed by this study using the most recent data among women with SSA. Methods: This study was conducted using the Demographic Health Survey data (2013-2022) from six countries, and a total weighted sample of 95,248 women was examined. STATA version 16 was used for the data analysis. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed and significant predictors were reported using adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: The overall weighted prevalence of clinical breast cancer screening was 14.23% (95% CI: 13.97-14.75), with Namibia and Tanzania having the highest (24.5%) and lowest (5.19%) screening rates, respectively. Higher breast cancer screening uptake was observed among women of advanced age (35-49) [aOR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.60, 1.98], had higher educational levels [aOR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.66, 2.03], cohabited [aOR = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.21, 1.55], in the richest wealth quintile [aOR = 2.27; 95% CI: 1.95, 2.64], urban residents [aOR = 1.21; 95%CI: 1.10, 1.33], multiparous [aOR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.30, 1.68], visited health facilities [aOR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.52, 1.76], and read newspapers [aOR = 1.78; 95%CI: 1.60, 2.15]. Conclusion: The prevalence of clinical breast cancer screening was low (14%). Strengthening awareness campaigns, improving healthcare infrastructure, health education, universal health coverage, and screening program access, with a focus on rural areas, women who lack formal education, and low socioeconomic status, are critical to increasing breast cancer screening rates and equity. Scale-up local and regional collaborations and the involvement of media agencies in the implementation of screening programs, advocacy, dissemination of information, and integration of screening programs with their routine care, such as perinatal care, can boost the screening. The existing health service delivery points also need to focus on integrating breast cancer screening services with routine care such as perinatal care.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHealth SurveysMultilevel AnalysisAdolescentAdultAfrica South of the SaharaAgedFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrevalenceSocioeconomic FactorsYoung Adultbreast cancerdeterminantsmultilevelscreeningSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID39421823
PMCPMC11483859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.