Factors influencing breast cancer screening practices among women of reproductive age in South Kayonza District, Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer in Rwanda is a major concern for women's health, as most breast cancer diagnoses are made at an advanced stage. Yet, diagnosis can be done early with breast cancer screening practices. AIM: To assess factors influencing breast cancer screening practices among women of reproductive age in South Kayonza District of Rwanda. METHODOLOGY: A quantitative survey was conducted with 246 women between 16 and 49 years of age from four health centres in South Kayonza District. A structured, pretested, and self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the influence of knowledge, health facilities, and socioeconomic and cultural factors on breast screening practices among women in South Kayonza. RESULT: Among all respondents, 55.5% had moderate knowledge about breast cancer risk factors and 60.2% also had moderate knowledge on the influence of breast cancer screening. While 28% were knowledgeable about Breast Self-Examination (BSE), 16.4% were knowledgeable about Clinical Breast Examination (CBE) and breast ultrasound. Responses about the practice of breast screening in the last two years showed 72% of respondents had never practiced BSE and 81.3% had not used CBE or breast ultrasound scan. The main source of information about breast cancer screening was the radio, used by 30.4% of respondents. Significant relationships were found between age and marital status with breast cancer screening practices. CONCLUSION: This study revealed low levels of knowledge about breast cancer, breast cancer screening, and practice regarding breast cancer screening. There is a need to promote awareness of breast cancer and create a program, which can influence breast cancer screening knowledge and practice to ultimately improve health among women in south Kayonza.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".