Knowledge, attitude and practice of breast self-examination among female undergraduate students in the University of Buea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of breast cancer is on the rise in many parts of Africa. In Cameroon, there were an estimated 2625 cases per 100,000 in 2012. The awareness of breast cancer preventive methods is therefore critical in the reduction of breast cancer morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated the knowledge, attitude and practice of breast self-examination (BSE), among female undergraduate students in the University of Buea. METHODS: The study comprised 166 female students of ages 17-30years (mean = 22.8 ± 3) sampled randomly. Data was collected by a pretested self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Nearly three quarter (73.5%) of the respondents had previously heard of BSE. Only 9.0% knew how to perform BSE. Similarly, only 13.9% knew what to look for while performing BSE. Television (19.9%) was the main source of information on BSE. Although perceived by 88% of the respondents as important, only 3% had performed BSE regularly. Furthermore, only 19.9% of the respondents have been to any health facility to have breast examination. Overall, although a majority (63.3%) of the respondents had a moderate attitude towards BSE as an important method for early detection of breast cancer, just a modest 9.6% were substantially aware of it. Lack of knowledge on BSE was cited as the main reason for not performing BSE. A significant association was observed between knowledge and the practice of BSE (P = 0.029), and between attitude and the practice of BSE (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the current knowledge gap that exists in the practice of BSE in the prevention of breast cancer in the study population. Sensitization campaigns and educational programmes ought to be intensified in order to address this issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".