| Literature DB >> 31744545 |
Francis Mensah Annan1, Kwaku Oppong Asante2,3, Nuworza Kugbey4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer knowledge and awareness, as well as an individual's perceptions about cervical cancer have been shown to significantly influence the screening practices of female students. Despite these studies, the mechanisms linking cervical cancer knowledge to screening practices among female students remain unexplored in the literature. Thus, this study examined the direct and indirect influences of cervical cancer knowledge on screening practices through perceptions about cervical cancer as informed by the health belief model.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; Female university students; Perceived risks screening behaviour; Susceptibility
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31744545 PMCID: PMC6862849 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-019-0842-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Socio-demographic characteristics of participants (N = 200)
| Variable | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Marital Status | ||
| Single | 156 | 78.0 |
| In relationship | 42 | 21.0 |
| Married | 2 | 1.0 |
| Area of residence | ||
| Urban | 160 | 80.0 |
| Semi -urban | 34 | 17.0 |
| Rural setting | 6 | 3.0 |
| Year of study | ||
| First year | 76 | 38.0 |
| Second year | 65 | 32.5 |
| Third year | 35 | 17.5 |
| Fourth year | 24 | 12.0 |
| Family background | ||
| Wealthy (within the top 25%) | 26 | 13.0 |
| Quite well off (within the 50 to 75% range) | 157 | 78.5 |
| Not well off (within the 25 to 50% range) | 17 | 8.5 |
| Religion | ||
| Christian | 189 | 94.5 |
| Muslim | 9 | 4.5 |
| Other | 2 | 1.0 |
| Working status | ||
| Working | 10 | 5.0 |
| Non-working | 190 | 95.0 |
Summary of descriptive statistics of the study variables
| Variables | Total items | Range | Mean | SD | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 15 | 0–15 | 4.90 | 3.05 | – |
| Susceptibility | 8 | 8–40 | 25.43 | 3.85 | .84a |
| Seriousness | 7 | 7–35 | 25.95 | 3.38 | .81a |
| Benefits | 6 | 6–30 | 21.61 | 2.71 | .72a |
| Barriers | 15 | 15–75 | 47.12 | 6.81 | .68a |
| Screening | 4 | 0–4 | 1.15 | 0.76 | .74b |
a = Cronbach alpha, b = Kuder-Richardson’ (KR-20) coefficient, SD = Standard Deviation
Correlation matrix of the relationships among the study variables
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Cervical cancer knowledge | 1 | ||||
| 2. Perceived susceptibility | .37*** | 1 | |||
| 3. Perceived seriousness | .31*** | .34*** | 1 | ||
| 4. Perceived benefits | .16* | .19** | .39*** | 1 | |
| 5. Perceived barriers | .05 | .24** | .01 | .11 | 1 |
| 6. Screening Behaviour | .26*** | .19** | .22** | .15* | −.02 |
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Fig. 1Summary mediating effect of perceived susceptibility on the link between cervical cancer knowledge and screening practices
Fig. 2Summary mediating effect of perceived seriousness on the link between cervical cancer knowledge and screening behaviours
Fig. 3Summary of the mediating effect of perceived benefits on the link between cervical cancer knowledge and screening behaviours
Fig. 4Summary of the mediating effect of perceived barriers on the link between cervical cancer knowledge and screening behaviours