ArticlePloS one2026
Determinants of cervical cancer screening among women aged 30 to 49 years in 20 low- and middle-income countries: A multilevel analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is preventable, yet it remains a leading cause of cancer death in women. About 90% of cases and 94% of deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Limited access to screening drives high incidence and mortality. Screening is central to secondary prevention and global elimination efforts.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess determinants of cervical cancer screening among women aged 30-49 years in low- and middle-income countries: a multilevel analysis.
methodsA cross-sectional study used nationally representative data from 148,605 weighted women aged 30-49 years in 20 LMICs (2019-2024). Multilevel logistic regression identified factors associated with cervical cancer screening while accounting for cluster-level variation. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, with AORs and 95% CIs reported. Model fit and random effects were assessed using deviance, MOR, ICC, and PCV.
resultOverall cervical cancer screening uptake was 14.03% (95% CI: 13.63-14.45%), ranging from 0.92% in Mauritania to 42.98% in Zambia. Higher screening was associated with older age 40-49 years (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI: 1.41-1.54), occupation (AOR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.21), contraceptive use (AOR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.31-1.44), recent health-facility visit (AOR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.84-2.02), prior abortion (AOR = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.22-1.34), female-headed households (AOR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.05-1.18), high community education (AOR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.49-1.79), and high media exposure (AOR = 2.54; 95% CI: 2.30-2.80). Lower uptake was observed among individuals in high-poverty communities (AOR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.68), higher parity (1-4 birth) (AOR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78-0.94); (five or more births) (AOR=0.66 95% CI: 59-0.73), and those residing in rural areas (AOR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.82-0.97).
conclusionCervical cancer screening uptake in LMICs is far below the WHO 2030 target, with wide country disparities. Socio-demographic factors, health-facility contact, and community education increase uptake, while poverty and geographic barriers reduce it. Integrating screening into routine reproductive and maternal care, strengthening community and media education, and addressing structural barriers to access are essential to improving coverage.
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.