Awareness, Practice and Intention to Practice Testicular Self-Examination among Professional Working Males in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aetiology of Testicular Cancer (TC) is still unknown to researchers but many of the associated risk factors have been identified. These include family history, age, racial origin, cryptorchidism, urogenital malformations, testicular atrophy, and infertility. Given the lack of scientific data on the causes of the disease, it has been asserted in previous studies that the promotion of awareness and early detection are prerequisites to mitigating risks of metastasis as well as improving survival. This study is to assess the awareness, practice, and intention to practice testicular self-examination among professional working males in Accra. Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional design with a structured research instrument was used to collect data from respondants. The purposive and convenience sampling techniques were used to collect data from 300 men at Accra in Ghana. The study was conducted at two (2) Universities and a Senior High school at Accra in Ghana. The data was then analysed using descriptive statistics, logistic regression, multiple linear regression, and structural equation modeling. Results: From the study findings, 37% of male participants rated their knowledge of testicular self-examination and related symptoms as good, 28% of participants practised testicular self-examination monthly, while 65% of respondents expressed their intention to practice monthly testicular self-examination. The findings from logistic regression demonstrated that level of education, age, and marital status of participants had a significant influence on testicular self-examination. Additionally, the multiple linear regression results revealed knowledge and self-efficacy significantly predict testicular self-examination intention. The path coefficient results from the structural equation model are consistent with results from the regression models. Conclusion: This research is the first to investigate testicular self-examination among men in Ghana. The findings revealed awareness and practice of TSE are low among participants. Therefore, the research findings would improve the expertise of physicians and nurses in providing counsel, intervention, and support for patients at risk of testicular cancer.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".