Self-Efficacy and Perceived Barriers as Determinants of Breast Self-Examination Among Female Nonmedical Students of the University of Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer mortality in sub-Saharan Africa is comparatively high largely because of low levels of knowledge and late presentation at hospitals. Breast self-examination (BSE) provides an important way of early detection of breast cancer, particularly for resource constrained countries. This study therefore examined the factors which influence the performance of BSE among female undergraduate nonmedical students of the University of Ghana. A cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and May 2018. It involved 308 students drawn from the University of Ghana. The instrument was based on the Health Belief Model and the Breast Cancer Knowledge questionnaires. The results suggest that about a quarter (23.4%) of the participants performed BSE at least once every month, despite 75.3% believing that checking the breast every month helps in early detection of breast cancer. As expected, those who had ever performed BSE had higher knowledge of breast cancer ( M = 6.722, standard deviation [ SD] = 2.090) compared with those who had never performed BSE ( M = 4.850, SD = 1.982), p = . 000. Similarly, they perceived barriers to performing BSE to be lower ( M = 17.900, SD = 5.733) compared with nonperformers ( M = 19.850, SD = 6.976), p < .05. Results of logistic regression analysis indicated that knowledge level, self-efficacy, and level at the university were statistically significant predictors of BSE. Educational and training programs that focus on equipping women with the skill to perform BSE are therefore recommended.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".