ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring breast cancer awareness and screening practices amongst rural women in The Gambia: Community-based cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Breast Cancer Disparities in African and African-Ancestry Populations: Genetics, Epigenetics, Structural Barriers and Technology-Enabled Solutions.British journal of biomedical science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is a significant public health challenge in The Gambia, where it ranks as the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. Rural women face unique challenges in accessing screening services; however, evidence about their breast cancer awareness and screening uptake remains limited. This study aimed to assess breast cancer awareness and identify associated factors influencing screening uptake among rural women in The Gambia.
methodsA community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among rural women in The Gambia. Using multistage sampling, we recruited 985 women from two local government authorities (response rate: 90.2%). Data were collected using a structured questionnaire administered in Kobo Toolbox. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics, while associations between predictors and breast cancer screening uptake were assessed using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with screening uptake. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05 and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals were reported.
resultsThe mean age of the study population was 32 years (standard deviation [SD]: ±12.6), with 34% aged 18-24 years. Although breast cancer awareness was high (87.7%), screening uptake was low (12.6%), primarily due to limited knowledge (58.7%), service unavailability (13.5%) and financial constraints (13.1%). Clinical breast examination was the most common screening method used (62.6%). Multivariable analysis revealed that Students (aOR=3.111, 95% CI: 1.453-6.663) and civil servants (aOR=2.778, 95% CI: 1.174-6.573) were more likely to undergo screening compared to unemployed women. Conversely, women with two (aOR=0.061, 95% CI: 0.005-0.791), three (aOR=0.075, 95% CI: 0.006-0.967), and five children (aOR=0.065, 95% CI: 0.005-0.877) were less likely to participate in screening compared to nulliparous women.
conclusionDespite the high awareness of breast cancer, screening uptake among rural women in The Gambia was notably low, primarily due to limited knowledge, service unavailability and financial constraints. There is an urgent need for targeted interventions to improve screening uptake, particularly among multiparous women in rural communities.
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.