↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of cervical cancer screening intention of HIV-positive women in the central region of Ghana

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictors of cervical cancer screening intention of HIV-positive women in the central region of Ghana
Published in
BMC Women's Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12905-018-0534-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy Innocentia Ebu, Joseph Kwesi Ogah

Abstract

Cervical cancer affects women, especially those with HIV-positive status. This study hypothesised that more HIV-positive women with high cues about cervical cancer screening, high perceived susceptibility to cervical cancer, high perceived seriousness of cervical cancer, high perceived benefits of cervical cancer screening, and low perceived barriers about cervical cancer screening have intention to seek cervical cancer screening than HIV-positive women with low cues, low perceived susceptibility, low perceived seriousness, low perceived benefits, and high perceived barriers. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 660 HIV-positive women aged 20 to 65 years using an interviewer administered questionnaire. Data were summarised using frequencies, percentages and binary logistic regression analysis. The findings showed that 82% (n = 540) of the respondents had intention to seek cervical cancer screening. The determinants of cervical cancer screening intention by HIV-positive women were cues, perceived seriousness and perceived benefits. Specifically, HIV-positive women with high cues were 3.48 times more likely to have intention to screen than those with low cues (95% CI, 1.43-8.49). Those with high perceived seriousness were 2.02 times more likely to have intention to screen than those with low perceived seriousness (95% CI, 1.24-3.30). Similarly, those with high perceived benefits were 1.7 times more likely to have intention to screen than those with low perceived benefits (95% CI, 1.05-2.71). However, perceived susceptibility (p = 0.063, OR 2.57, [95% CI, 0.95-6.93]) and perceived barriers (p = 0.969, OR = 1.01, [95% CI, 0.54-1.88]) were not statistically significant predictors of intention to seek cervical cancer screening in the sample studied. Cervical cancer screening interventions for HIV-positive women need to have a strong focus on explaining the seriousness of the disease, benefits of screening, and increase cues about screening, as these factors could improve attitude towards cervical cancer screening and promote the health of high risk women.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 180 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 20%
Student > Bachelor 28 16%
Lecturer 11 6%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 4%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 66 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 20%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Psychology 4 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 68 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,590,133
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,530
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,663
of 330,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#33
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,057 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.