↓ Skip to main content

Motivations and barriers to cervical cancer screening among HIV infected women in HIV care: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 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
Motivations and barriers to cervical cancer screening among HIV infected women in HIV care: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Women's Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12905-015-0243-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnes Bukirwa, Joan N. Mutyoba, Barbara N.Mukasa, Yvonne Karamagi, Mary Odiit, Esther Kawuma, Rhoda K. Wanyenze

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the second commonest cancer in women worldwide and the commonest cancer among women in Uganda. Annual cervical screening is recommended for women living with HIV for early detection of abnormal cervical changes, however uptake remains grossly limited. This study assessed factors associated with cervical screening uptake among HIV infected women at Mildmay Uganda where cervical screening using Visual inspection with acetic acid and iodine (VIA and VILI) was integrated into HIV care since July 2009. Eighteen (18) in-depth interviews with HIV infected women and 6 key informant interviews with health care providers were conducted in April 2013 to assess client, health care provider and facility-related factors that affect cervical screening uptake. In-depth interview respondents included six HIV infected women in each of the following categories; women who had never screened, those who had screened once and missed follow-up annual screening, and those who had fully adhered to the annual screening schedule. Data was analyzed using content analysis method. Motivations for cervical cancer screening included the need for comprehensive assessment, diagnosis, and management of all ailments to ensure good health, fear of consequences of cervical cancer, suspicion of being at risk and the desire to maintain a good relationship with health care workers. The following factors negatively impacted on uptake of cervical screening: Myths and misconceptions such as the belief that a woman's ovaries and uterus could be removed during screening, fear of pain associated with cervical screening, fear of undressing and the need for women to preserve their privacy, low perceived cervical cancer risk, shortage of health workers to routinely provide cervical cancer education and screening, and competing priorities for both provider and patient time. Major barriers to repeat screening included limited knowledge and appreciation of the need for repeat screening, and lack of reminders. These findings highlight the need for client-centered counseling and support to overcome fears and misconceptions, and to innovatively address the human resource barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening among HIV infected 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 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 285 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 18%
Student > Bachelor 35 12%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Postgraduate 20 7%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 86 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 20%
Social Sciences 21 7%
Psychology 6 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 26 9%
Unknown 95 33%
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 07 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,351,145
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,255
of 1,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,390
of 279,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#25
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 279,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.