ArticleBMJ public health2024
Integrated cervical cancer screening uptake and associated factors among women attending primary care services at public health centres in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a multicentre cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ public health, 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.
- Effect of Health Education on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake and Knowledge among Target Women in Addis Ababa: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Trial
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer (CC) is a major health problem in Ethiopia. Integrated healthcare approaches have been suggested as a way to increase access to and utilisation of screening services. Limited data exists on integrated CC screening (CCS) uptake at the primary care facilities where most women access healthcare. This study aimed to determine integrated CCS uptake and associated factors among women attending primary care services at health centres (HCs) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Methods: A multicentred cross-sectional study design was conducted among 1366 women attending primary care services at HCs in Addis Ababa. A systematic random sampling method was used to reach the study participants. Sexually active women aged 30-49 years attending primary care services in HCs were included in the study. A multivariable logistic regression model, with Stata/MP V.17.0 software, was used to identify the factors associated with integrated CCS service utilisation at a p value<0.05. Findings were presented using adjusted OR (AORs) with 95% CI. Result: Only 15.6% (95% CI: 13.7 to 17.6) of women used the CCS that was integrated into the primary care services that they initially sought. Being single (AOR: 4.10; 95% CI: 2.19 to 7.68), divorced (AOR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.04 to 5.21), attending college and above (AOR: 5.86; 95% CI: 2.32 to 14.79), being in the richest wealth index (AOR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.46 to 5.22), husband's sexual behaviour (AOR: 6.8; 95% CI: 4.09 to 11.21), having a favourable attitude towards CCS (AOR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.52 to 3.29) and visiting postnatal clinic (AOR: 8.06; 95% CI: 2.33 to 27.8) were associated with utilisation of CCS services, while preference of a specific gender of healthcare provider (HCP) (AOR: 0.04; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.13) was associated with non-utilisation of CCS. Conclusion: The study found low integrated CCS uptake among women in Addis Ababa, influenced by factors like marital status, education, wealth, husband's sexual behaviour, attitude towards CCS, postnatal clinic visits and preferred gender of HCPs. Taking these factors into consideration by stakeholders could promote CCS utilisation.
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.