ArticleBMJ open2025
Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding cervical cancer screening among women in the Dindaeng community, Bangkok, Thailand: a cross-sectional community-based study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding cervical cancer screening among women in Bangkok's Dindaeng community and identify factors influencing screening uptake.
designCross-sectional, community-based survey.
settingPrimary care level; conducted in a high-density, low-income urban community in Bangkok, Thailand.
participantsA total of 450 women aged 25-65 years were recruited using convenience sampling. After excluding ineligible participants (eg, prior hysterectomy), 428 women completed the questionnaire. All participants were literate in Thai and resided in the study area. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a history of cervical cancer screening (ever screened vs never screened). Secondary outcomes included frequency of screening, barriers to screening and level of knowledge regarding cervical cancer and human papillomavirus (HPV).
resultsAmong 428 participants (mean age 47.9±11.2 years), 65.4% reported ever having been screened, but only 19.1% adhered to regular screening intervals. The most common barriers to screening were the absence of symptoms (54.7%) and fear of the procedure (42.1%). Only 31.8% correctly identified HPV as the cause of cervical cancer, and 23.8% were aware of the HPV vaccine. Higher knowledge scores were associated with having fewer children (adjusted OR (AOR) = 10.71; 95% CI: 1.29 to 89.12), while oral contraceptive use was negatively associated with high knowledge scores (AOR=0.14; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.74).
conclusionsDespite a moderate rate of screening uptake, consistent adherence and knowledge regarding cervical cancer and its prevention remain suboptimal. Targeted community health education and structural interventions are needed to improve awareness and promote regular screening in low-income urban settings.
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.