MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294325370 · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s374487

Knowledge, Barriers and Motivators to Cervical Cancer Screening in Rwanda: A Qualitative Study

2022· article· en· W4294325370 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jean Pierre Gafaranga, Felix Manirakiza, Emmanuel Ndagijimana, Jean Christian Urimubabo, Irénée David Karenzi, Esperance Muhawenayo, Phophina Muhimpundu Gashugi, Dancilla Nyirasebura, Belson Rugwizangoga

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Women s Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIWK Health CentreDalhousie UniversityMicroResearch
KeywordsCervical cancerMedicineFocus groupFamily medicineDeveloping countryPopulationQualitative researchPublic healthCervical screeningCervical cancer screeningCancerGynecologyEnvironmental healthNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cervical cancer is a global public health problem with marked geographical disparity. High morbidity and mortality rates in developing countries are associated with low screening rates. In 2020, in Rwanda, 3.7 million women aged 15– 59 years were at risk of developing cervical cancer, the most commonly diagnosed female cancer in Rwanda. Despite Rwanda being the first African country to vaccinate against human papilloma virus with a three-dose regimen vaccination coverage of nearly 93% in the target population of girls aged < 15 years, and having established cervical cancer screening program, recent studies have found low screening rates. Our study sought to determine knowledge, motivators and barriers of cervical cancer screening. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study; using focus group interview in an urban health facility (Muhima district hospital) and a rural health center (Nyagasambu health center) offering cervical screening services in Rwanda. Participants were women seeking these services and other women attending the health facility for any reason, and female staff working in these facilities. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analyzed using content analysis. Results: Thirty women participated in focus group interview, with an average age of 39 years. Many of women showed knowledge about cervical cancer existence and prevention methods. However, fear for pain, lack of knowledge about screening, how and where the screening was done, and concern for privacy were recurring subthemes. Some participants also mentioned lack of health insurance as a barrier for cervical cancer screening. Conclusion: Barriers to uptake cervical cancer screening services in Rwanda are related to poor information about cervical cancer and the importance of screening as well as non-adherence to medical insurance. Population sensitization through campaign and community outreach activities could have a positive impact on increasing the usage of cervical cancer screening in Rwanda. Keywords: cervical cancer, screening, fear for pain, qualitative, acceptance, Rwanda

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.426 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Women s HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207