Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40667411›Full record

ArticleRwanda journal of medicine and health sciences2021

Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening and Associated Factors Among Women Attending Outpatient Services in Rwamagana Hospital, Rwanda.

Innocent Ndateba, Athanasie Kabatsinda, Eléazar Ndabarora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rwanda journal of medicine and health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Innocent NdatebaSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda.
Athanasie KabatsindaSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda.
Eléazar NdabaroraFaculty of Health Sciences, Kibogora Polytechnic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is a global public health threat for women. Rwanda Ministry of Health recommends screening as preventive strategy. However, the screening remains low in Rwanda. Objective: To determine the uptake level of cervical cancer screening and associated factors among Rwandan women. Methods: A quantitative analytical cross-sectional study design was used. We recruited 178 participants using convenience sampling from an estimated 320 women who attended outpatient department in the previous month. The sample size was calculated using the Yamane's formula. We used chi-square test, t-test and multiple logistic regression analysis to analyse data. Results: A total of 178 (100%) participants completed the survey. Forty-one (23%) participants had undertaken cervical cancer screening. Knowledge (OR: 1.26,95% CI:1.069-1.485, p=.006) and income were predictors of cervical cancer screening uptake. Participants earning RWF ≥ 63,751 were more likely to uptake cervical cancer screening (OR:11.141, 95% CI:3.136-39.571, p< .001) compared to those earning less than RWF 25,500 monthly. Conclusion: Cervical cancer screening uptake among study population was low. Participants with more knowledge and high-income were more likely to uptake cervical cancer screening. Improving women's knowledge and socioeconomic situation would improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

Cervical cancer screeningpap smear testRwandawomen

Identifiers

PMID40667411
PMCPMC12257233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.