ArticlePublic health nursing (Boston, Mass.)
Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening Among Rural Women in Zimbabwe.
Article in Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the determinants of cervical cancer (CC) screening among underserved rural women in Zimbabwe.
designCommunity-based cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE: 840 rural women (25-65 years). MEASUREMENTS: A structured, pretested questionnaire was used to collect data on sociodemographic characteristics and factors influencing screening. The outcome was defined as self-reported ever screening for CC. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between CC screening and independent variables.
resultsOf the 840 women included, 33% had a history of screening. Women 25-45 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.43; 95% CI: 0.30-0.61) and without medical insurance (aOR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45-0.97) had reduced odds of CC screening. Conversely, women who had seen or heard messages on CC screening (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.03-2.13), were living with HIV (aOR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.22-2.87) reported recent antibiotic use (aOR: 4.50; 95% CI: 1.47-13.79) and had malaria in the last 6 months (aOR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.02-5.86) had increased odds of CC screening.
conclusionThere is a need for intensified efforts to improve CC screening uptake, particularly in underserved rural areas with suboptimal screening rates and high CC burden. Strategies should include widespread tailored awareness messaging targeting younger women, women living with HIV, and women without medical insurance.
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.