| Literature DB >> 26666242 |
Neema Minja Kileo1, Denna Michael2, Nyasule Majura Neke3, Candida Moshiro4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide cervical cancer is one of the more common forms of carcinoma among women, causing high morbidity and high mortality. Despite being a major health problem in Tanzania, screening services for cervical cancer are very limited, and uptake of those services is low. We therefore conducted a study to investigate utilization of cancer screening services, and its associated factors among female primary school teachers in Ilala Municipality, Dar es Salaam.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26666242 PMCID: PMC4678732 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-1206-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1A map of Ilala District
Baseline characteristics and utilization of cervical cancer screening services among female primary school teachers in Ilala Municipality, 2010
| Variable | Total ( | Utilization of cervical cancer screening services ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| ||
| Age group (in years) | ||||
| 20–29 | 106 (20.7 %) | 30 | 28.3 | |
| 30–39 | 219 (42.8 %) | 42 | 19.2 | |
| 40–49 | 102 (19.9 %) | 17 | 16.7 | |
| 50 and above | 85 (16.6 %) | 19 | 22.4 | 0.166 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single | 61 (12.0 %) | 11 | 18 | |
| Married | 412 (80.9 %) | 91 | 22.1 | |
| Widowed/divorced | 36 (7.0 %) | 6 | 16.7 | 0.606 |
| Education level | ||||
| Secondary | 432 (84.3 %) | 89 | 20.6 | |
| Higher | 80 (15.63 %) | 19 | 23.8 | 0.526 |
| Parity | ||||
| Zero parity | 54 (10.5 %) | 11 | 20.4 | |
| Para one | 139 (27.1) | 23 | 16.6 | |
| Multi-parityα | 254 (49.6 %) | 54 | 21.3 | |
| Grand-multi parityβ | 65 (12.7 %) | 20 | 30.8 | 0.145 |
| Life-time sex partners | ||||
| One | 71 (14.0 %) | 11 | 15.5 | |
| Two or more | 435 (86.0 %) | 97 | 22.3 | 0.194 |
| Ever used contraceptive | ||||
| Yes | 311 (60.7) | 72 | 23.2 | |
| No | 201 (39.3) | 34 | 17.9 | 0.156 |
| Know cervical that cancer is preventable | ||||
| Yes | 347 (67.8) | 98 | 28.2 | |
| No | 18 (3.5) | 3 | 16.7 | |
| I don’t know | 147 (28.7) | 7 | 4.8 | <0.005 |
| Involve spouse in making decision | ||||
| Yes | 329 (77.8) | 57 | 17.3 | |
| No | 94 (22.2) | 40 | 42.5 | <0.005 |
| Procedures for screening is disgraceful | ||||
| Yes | 46 (10.5) | 8 | 17.4 | |
| No | 392 (89.5) | 90 | 23 | 0.391 |
N denotes Total number, n denotes number in category, α = 2-4 previous pregnancies, β = 5 and above previous pregnancies
Statistical significance based on Chi-square P value. Bolded results are statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05. OR denotes Odds Ratios and 95 % CI denote 95 % confidence intervals
Risk factors for utilization of cervical cancer screening services: Crude and age-adjusted analysis using logistic regression, 2010
| Variable | Crude | Age - adjusted | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95 % CI) | P value | OR (95 % CI) | P value | |
| Age group (in years) | ||||
| 20–29 | Ref | |||
| 30–39 | 0.60(0.35–1.04) | 0.064 | - | - |
| 40–49 |
|
| - | - |
| 50 and above | 0.71(0.37–1.42) | 0.351 | - | - |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single | Ref | Ref | ||
| Married | 1.29(0.64–2.58) | 0.472 | 1.77(0.83–3.75) | 0.139 |
| Widowed/divorced | 0.91(0.30–2.72) | 0.865 | 1.29(0.40–4.23) | 0.671 |
| Education level | ||||
| Secondary | Ref | Ref | ||
| Higher | 1.20(0.68–2.11) | 0.526 | 1.28(0.72–2.28) | 0.397 |
| Parity | ||||
| Zero parity | Ref | Ref | ||
| Para one | 0.76(0.34–1.72) | 0.532 | 0.90(0.40–2.02) | 0.792 |
| Multi-parity | 1.05(0.51–2.19) | 0.884 | 1.55(0.71–3.38) | 0.275 |
| Grand-multi parity | 1.74 (074–4.09) | 0.2 |
| 0.025 |
| Life-time sex partners | ||||
| One | Ref | Ref | ||
| Two or more | 1.57(0.79–3.10) | 0.195 |
|
|
| Ever used contraceptives | ||||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | ||
| No | 0.72(0.46–1.13) | 0.156 | 0.69(0.44–1.08) | 0.105 |
| Knows cervical cancer is preventable | ||||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | ||
| No | 0.51(0.14–1.80) | 0.285 | 0.48(0.14–1.72) | 0.261 |
| I don’t know | 0.13(0.05–0.29) | <0.001 |
|
|
| Involve spouse in making decision | ||||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | ||
| No | 3.53(2.11–5.91) | <0.001 |
|
|
| Procedures for screening is disgraceful | ||||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | ||
| No | 1.41(0.64–3.15) | 0.392 | 1.35(0.60–3.05) | 0.463 |
Bolded results are statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 (Wald P value). OR denotes Odds Ratios and 95%CI denote 95 % confidence intervals
Risk factors for utilization of cervical cancer screening service among female primary school teachers in Ilala Municipality, June 2010: A multivariable analysis
| Variable | Adjusted OR | 95 % CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age group (in years) | |||
| 20–29 | Ref | Ref | - |
| 30–39 | 1.10 | 0.56–2.13 | 0.787 |
| 40–49 | 0.94 | 0.42–2.13 | 0.884 |
| 50 and above | 2.74 | 1.18–6.38 | 0.020 |
| Knows cervical cancer is preventable | |||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | - |
| No | 0.42 | 0.09–2.02 | 0.277 |
| I don’t know |
|
|
|
| Involve spouse in making decision | |||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | - |
| No |
|
|
|
| Procedures for screening is disgraceful | |||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | - |
| No | 2.22 | 0.89–5.56 | 0.089 |
Bolded results are statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 (Wald P value). OR denotes Odds Ratios and 95 % CI denote 95 % confidence intervals