Qualitative study of barriers to cervical cancer screening among Nigerian women.

BMJ Open

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Institute of Human Virology and Greenebaum Cancer Centre, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Published: January 2016

Objectives: To explore the barriers to cervical cancer screening, focusing on religious and cultural factors, in order to inform group-specific interventions that may improve uptake of cervical cancer screening programmes.

Design: We conducted four focus group discussions among Muslim and Christian women in Nigeria.

Setting: Discussions were conducted in two hospitals, one in the South West and the other in the North Central region of Nigeria.

Participants: 27 Christian and 22 Muslim women over the age of 18, with no diagnosis of cancer.

Results: Most participants in the focus group discussions had heard about cervical cancer except Muslim women in the South Western region who had never heard about cervical cancer. Participants believed that wizardry, multiple sexual partners and inserting herbs into the vagina cause cervical cancer. Only one participant knew about the human papillomavirus. Among the Christian women, the majority of respondents had heard about cervical cancer screening and believed that it could be used to prevent cervical cancer. Participants mentioned religious and cultural obligations of modesty, gender of healthcare providers, fear of disclosure of results, fear of nosocomial infections, lack of awareness, discrimination at hospitals, and need for spousal approval as barriers to uptake of screening. These barriers varied by religion across the geographical regions.

Conclusions: Barriers to cervical cancer screening vary by religious affiliations. Interventions to increase cervical cancer awareness and screening uptake in multicultural and multireligious communities need to take into consideration the varying cultural and religious beliefs in order to design and implement effective cervical cancer screening intervention programmes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4716205PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008533DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cervical cancer
44
cancer screening
24
barriers cervical
12
heard cervical
12
cervical
11
cancer
11
screening
8
religious cultural
8
focus group
8
group discussions
8

Similar Publications

Background: A precise observation is that the cervix's solid tumors possess hypoxic regions where the oxygen concentration drops below 1.5%. Hypoxia negatively impacts the host's immune system and significantly diminishes the effectiveness of several treatments, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

U.parvum serovar 6 may be a novel element in the progression of HPV infection to CIN: A cross-sectional study of 7,058 women.

J Infect

December 2024

Microbiome Medicine Centre, Department of Laboratory Medicine, ZhuJiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Background: Ureaplasma parvum (U. parvum) is generally regarded as innocuous, and studies focusing on variations in pathogenicity among U. parvum serovars are inadequate.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: In Japan, the current coverage rate of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is only 30%, and the rate of biennial cervical screening is 40%. The Japanese Government has attempted to increase the coverage of HPV vaccination and cervical screening. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of the 9-valent HPV vaccine and cervical screening in Japan.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

<b>Background and Objective:</b> Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in Indonesia, where traditional herbal treatments like <i>Zanthoxylum acanthopodium</i> (andaliman) are culturally used. Investigating protein biomarkers such as E7, pRb, EGFR and p16 can help assess the efficacy of these treatments. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> There were 5 groups in this study: 2 control groups (C- and C+) and 3 treatment groups (each receiving one of three doses).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!