MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385396630 · doi:10.1186/s44263-023-00005-6

The barriers to cervical cancer screening for urban and rural populations in Rwanda

2023· article· en· W4385396630 on OpenAlexaff
Hallie Dau, Marianne Vidler, Maryam AboMoslim, Barbra Mutamba, Zoey Nesbitt, John Deodatha, Schadrack Danson Byiringiro, Charles Niyotwiringiye, Nadia Mithani, Varun Nair, Laurie Smith, Stephen Rulisa, Gina Ogilvie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Global and Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreBC Centre for Disease ControlWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical cancerCervical cancer screeningMedicineGeographyEnvironmental healthCancerSocioeconomicsDemographySociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in Rwandan women. There is a limited understanding of the barriers that women face to obtain cervical cancer screening in Rwanda. It is important to understand the barriers in order to implement effective screening programs. The goal of this study is to describe the barriers to cervical cancer screening among women in Rwanda and how they differ among women in rural and urban areas. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited women from June 1 to 9, 2022, at Muhima and Nyamata District Hospitals in Rwanda. Women were eligible for the study if they were ≥ 18 years and spoke Kinyarwanda or English. Women completed a 15-min survey which included questions on the participants' demographics, knowledge of cervical cancer, cervical cancer screening history, and barriers to healthcare. Women were stratified by survey location (urban vs rural). Descriptive statistics were reported. RESULTS: A total of 374 women completed the survey with 169 participants from Muhima and 205 from Nyamata. Most women were in a relationship and had a primary school or less education. The most common barriers to accessing general healthcare services were long wait times at the facility (Muhima 26%; Nyamata 30%), low quality of care (Muhima 15%; Nyamata 12%), and transportation costs (Muhima 13%; Nyamata 9.3%). However, women from Nyamata were significantly more likely to report distance to the health center as a barrier (p-value < 0.001), and women from Muhima were significantly more likely to report transportation method as a barrier (p-value = 0.004). The primary reason reported for not obtaining cervical cancer screening was that women did not know how or where to get tested (Muhima 57%; Nyamata 51%). CONCLUSIONS: The most common barriers to cervical cancer screening in Rwanda were the quality of clinical care and issues with traveling to the clinic. Implementing a cervical cancer self-collection program could help eliminate many barriers that women face to obtain health services in Rwanda. More research is needed to better understand the acceptability of cervical cancer screening in Rwanda and how it could be integrated into the healthcare system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Global and Public HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207