Skip to main content
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention : APJCP logoLink to Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention : APJCP
. 2017;18(4):969–979. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.4.969

Perceived Risk of Cervical Cancer and Barriers to Screening among Secondary School Female Teachers in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia

Marwa Rashad Salem 1,*, Tarek Tawfik Amin 1, Abdulhamid Abdulrahman Alhulaybi 2, Abdulaziz Sami Althafar 3, Rehab Ahmed Abdelhai 1
PMCID: PMC5494247  PMID: 28545195

Abstract

Background:

No previous studies had addressed the perceived risk of cervical cancer (CC) and its influence on screening practices and perceived barriers in Saudi Arabia.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 506 randomly selected Saudi female secondary school teachers in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia to assess their level of knowledge about risk factors and signs of CC in relation to perceived risk and to characterize CC screening compliance using a self-administered questionnaire.

Results:

Of the included female Saudi teachers, 65.4% and 63.4% were considered less-knowledgeable about CC risk factors and early signs and symptoms respectively. Only 17.2% reported being previously examined for CC. The majority of participants perceived themselves to be at an average or below average risk of CC. Residing in urban areas was the strongest predictor of CC screening (Odds ratio ‘OR’= 3.39; 95% confidence intervals ‘CI= 1.76-6.46; P=0.001). Awareness of risk factors was significantly associated with higher awareness of signs of CC (OR 2.5; 95% CI=, P=0.001). Exploratory factor analysis showed that personal fears (of screening being embarrassing) was the major factor that hindered CC screening with a high loading eigenvalue of 4.392, explaining 30.8% of the barriers toward utilization, followed by health care related factors.

Conclusion:

Secondary school teachers in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia showed low perceived risk, poor awareness about risk factors, signs and symptoms of CC and limited uptake of screening practices. This underlines the need for education programs on CC targeting this group.

Keywords: Cancer cervix, risk factors, screening, barriers, perceived risk, Saudi Arabia

Introduction

Cervical cancer (CC) is a major public health problem that continues to be one of the leading female genital cancers worldwide (Ali et al.,2012). It is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide with an estimated 528,000 new cases and 266,000 deaths (GLOBOCAN, 2012), with vast majority occurring in developing countries (Abudukadeer et al., 2015). Moreover, the mortality rates for CC are expected to increase by 25 % during the next decade, despite the fact that this is one of the most preventable cancers (El Banna et al., 2014). In Saudi Arabia, it ranks the eighth most frequent cancer among women between 15 and 44 years of age, with 241 new cases and 84 deaths every year (Bruni et al., 2015). The incidence in Saudi Arabia is one of the lowest in the world at 1.9 cases per 100,000 women, accounting for 2.6% of diagnosed cancer cases in women. The number of new CC cases is 152 per year, and the mortality is 55 cases per year (GLOBOCAN, 2012). In Saudi Arabia it is anticipated that as the population ages, there will be a dramatic increase in the incidence of CC. The estimated number of new CC cases and deaths in the year 2025 are 309 and 117, respectively (GLOBOCAN, 2012). Risk factors of CC include infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), early age at the first sexual intercourse, multiple sexual partners, early age at first delivery, multi-parity, immunosuppression, co-infection with other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), cigarette smoking, long-term use of hormonal contraceptives, estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy and obesity (Parkin et al., 2001; WHO, 2007).

Although CC is one of the preventable and curable cancers, most women in developing countries, including Saudi Arabia, clinically presented with advanced stages that require extensive treatment with diminished survival (Alhamlan et al., 2015). Appropriate level of knowledge, attitude, and beliefs are key elements for adopting healthy lifestyle, influencing human behaviors, accepting newly introduced preventive measures and determining the stage at which cancer patient presents to health facility (Aswathy et al., 2012). Studies from many parts of the world (Dendash et al., 2005, Kietpeerakool et al., 2009; Ebu et al., 2012; Notara et al., 2012; Kamzol et al., 2013; Khan et al., 2014; Alhamlan et al., 2015; Koc, 2015) including Saudi Arabia (Gari et al., 2012; Al-Darwish et al., 2014), have shown the lack of awareness amongst populations towards CC symptoms and early signs, screening, and the role of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination in prevention. Cervical cancer’s long latency and recognizable pre-cancerous lesions make screening a particularly effective way of prevention as these pre-cancerous lesions, once identified, can be expectantly managed or treated safely and inexpensively in an outpatient setting (Blumenthal and Gaffikin, 2005). It is important to create awareness among communities through educational programs on cancer prevention, preventable risk factors, benefits of early diagnosis, and availability of screening facilities (Abudukadeer et al., 2015). In the developed countries, CC screening programs have reduced the incidence of invasive lesions up to 80%. This decline has now reached a plateau as new cases still occur in patients who have failed to attend for screening or where the sensitivity of the tests have proven inadequate (Abudukadeer et al., 2015).

Since teachers play an effective role in communication, motivation and education of young students, assessment of their knowledge, attitude and behavior towards CC is essential to reduce its risk among future young generations. Though many studies have been done on CC in Saudi Arabia, these studies were carried out among health care workers and women attending the antenatal/gynecology clinics (Alzahrani et al., 2010).

There is thus a paucity of work on CC awareness and screening barriers among teachers especially those at secondary schools who are in good position to educate young girls under their domain and, in turn, the society at large. Inevitably, they must have adequate awareness about the risk factors and the recommended screening guidelines towards CC if they are willing to contribute significantly to the education and prevention quest against the condition. The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to assess the level of knowledge of risk factors and signs of CC in relation to the perceived personal risk, to characterize CC screening takers and to explore possible screening barriers among a sample of female secondary school teachers in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia.

Materials and Methods

Setting and design: A cross-sectional study that was carried out in Al Hassa Governorate, Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia; 50 km from the Arabian Gulf, 450 km from the capital Riyadh, and populated by about 1.5 million. Al Hassa is comprised of three regions; urban, populated by about 60% of the total population, rural consisting of 23 villages (35% of the population) and “Hegar” Bedouin scattered communities making up the remaining 5%. The Ministry of Health provides primary care through 54 PHCs, while the rest of the population are provided with similar services through other sectors e.g., National Guard, ARAMCO (oil company), military and others.

Target Population: In Al Hassa, there are 53 female public secondary schools with a total students’ population of 25,933; 16,753 in urban and 9,180 in rural areas (as for academic year 2015), with an average teaching staff of 35 to 50 female Saudi teachers per school.

Sample size

Open Epi (http://www.openepi.com/SampleSize/SSPropor.htm) was used to calculate the required sample size. Assuming the unknown prevalence of the perceived barriers to cervical cancer screening of 50% (P) in the formula (n = [DEFF*Np(1-p)]/ [(d2/Z21-α/2*(N-1)+p*(1-p)]), with a precision of ±5%, and employing a 95% confidence interval and 80% power, the minimal sample size required should account for 484 participants. Adding 20% to compensate for potential non response, the final total sample size was estimated to be 580 female teachers.

Sampling method

An updated list of all female secondary schools in Al Hassa distributed by districts (in the urban setting: two major namely Hofuf and Mubaraz, composed of about 25 districts, while the rural areas included about 15 major villages) was used to randomly selecting 20 schools, 12 urban and 8 rural (schools at Hegar were excluded due to transportation problem). All Saudis teachers aged 25 years or more, married (or previously married) were targeted for inclusion. Non-Saudis and those assigned administrative or non-teaching jobs were excluded.

Data collection instrument

The data collection form was designed to gather information about:

a- Socio-demographics and health related: school name, age in years, residence, age at marriage, educational status, family income in Saudi Riyals, number of living children, use of hormonal contraception, and previous history of any gynecological problems and its nature.

b- Awareness and perceived risk of CC: two close ended question were used, have you ever heard about CC followed by perceived risk ‘‘Compared to other women of your age, what do you think your chances of getting CC are?’ with five possible options ‘Much below average’, ‘Below average’, ‘Average’, ‘Above average’ and ‘Much above average’ (scored -2,- 1, 0, +1 and +2, respectively). This item was adapted from the available literature (Hall et al., 2004; Marlow et al., 2009; Tomasz et al., 2012).

c- CC awareness measure: Cervical Cancer Awareness Measure (Cervical CAM) toolkit version 2.1, this instrument was developed by the UCL Health Behavior Research Centre, in collaboration with the Department of Health Cancer Team and The Eve Appeal. It is based on a generic CAM developed by Cancer Research UK, University College London, King’s College London and Oxford University in 2007-08. The original Cervical CAM comprises nine questions with a total of 31 items: Warning signs (12 items with yes, no, and do not now options), Delay in seeking medical help (1 item), Age at risk of CC (1 item), Risk factors (12 items, with true, false and do not know options), Confidence detecting CC symptom (1 item, not at all confident, not very confident, fairly confident and very confident), The availability of CC screening program (Knowledge; yes, no and do not know and age of screening), the availability of vaccination program (knowledge; yes, no and do not know option and age of vaccination). The psychometric evalufation of the Cervical CAM indicated that it has satisfactory internal reliability with Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7 for all components. Test-retest reliability over a 1 week interval was found to be good, with all correlations above 0.7.

-The modified form used for data collection in this study included the following items: signs and symptoms of cervical cancer (11 items), knowledge about risk factors (9 items), confidence in detecting CC symptoms (1 item), availability of cervical cancer screening program (2 items), availability of vaccination program (2 items), role of Pap test in screening (one item), with a total of 26 items. The original form was translated by two language experts into Arabic and back translated to English by another two independent language experts.

-Two items were removed from the original form; one item assessing early signs/symptoms (persistent diarrhea is a sign of CC) with lowering of the internal consistency (α=0.571) and another one in the risk factors bundle (age at first sexual intercourse) in response to the conservative nature of Saudi society as revealed during the pilot testing. The internal consistency measure (Cronbach’s alpha) of the modified instrument was.784 (26 items), for the signs section it was.861 (10 items) and for risk factor was.751 (9 items) as revealed from the pilot testing.

d- Perceived barriers to CC screening: Twenty one items were identified as possible barriers to the uptake of cervical cancer screening relevant to health facilities, personal and socio-cultural as reveled from the pilot testing, expert opinions and the available literature (JoWaller et al., 2009; Victoria et al., 2011; Szaboova et al., 2014; Marlow et al., 2015). Structured list of the possible barriers were prepared in close-ended questions format with yes, no or not sure, with instructions to the participants to choose all the possible barriers they perceived.

Data collection procedure

In response to the sensitivity of the topic, anonymous self-administered survey was followed for data collection. Data collection was carried out through the following steps: In Saudi Arabia, the educational system is divided gender-wise with independent directorates for each sections, communicating with females is not culturally acceptable, a letter issued for each principals in the selected school to orient them about the objectives, contents and administration of the data collection forms. Five teachers (three in urban and two in rural schools) were invited to supervise the data collection process after proper orientation about the contents and items of the data collection form and handling the completed forms.

Pilot testing

The provisional form of data collection was tested on 47 women attended for primary health services in a nearby primary center beyond the sample size with the following objectives: Acceptability of the questions especially in relation to risk factors.- Comprehension of the terms and questions and Ambiguity (if any). - The perceived barriers were initially formulated and listed from the available literature; further addition of the possible barriers was considered after testing. - Reliability analysis was carried out.

Data analysis

Out of 650 forms distributed at the selected schools, 603 forms retrieved (response rate of 92%). Forms with missing of one or more items were discarded (n=97); 506 forms were eligible for final analysis. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc, IBM, U.S.A.). The perceived risk score based on the participants’ responses into five options ‘Much below average’, ‘Below average’, ‘Average’, ‘Above average’ and ‘Much above average’ (scored -2, - 1, 0, +1 and +2, respectively). Awareness of early signs-symptoms (10 points) and risk factors (9 points): correct responses assigned one point while do not know or incorrect responses received nil. For the risk factors scores those attained ≥5 points were assigned as being knowledgeable (331/506 ‘65.4%’ scored ≤4 points), while for the knowledge of early signs and symptoms we assumed a score of ≥7 as being knowledgeable (321/506 ‘63.4% attained a score of ≤6 points). These cut-offs were employed for the generation of logistic regression model to determine the possible predictors (socio-demographics, perceived level of risk, and other possible independent variables of the dependent variables (knowledge of risk factors and early signs and symptoms of cervical cancer). For categorical data, frequency, proportions and percentage were used for reporting, Chi square was used for comparison. For continuous data; mean, standard deviation, and median were used, t-test, Mann Whitney and Kruskall Wallis tests were used for comparison. Another logistic regression model was generated to determine possible predictors for screening (dependent variable) by inclusion of significant potential independent variables revealed at univariate analysis. P value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

Exploratory Factor Analysis: A principal components analysis with an orthogonal (Varimax) rotation was used to identify the factors underlying the different perceived barriers to the uptake of cervical cancer screening among the sampled Saudi women. Eigenvalue of 1.0 was used for factor inclusion with examination of scree plots to confirm appropriate number of possible factors. The criteria used for item elimination to maintain simple structure included were the primary factor loading below 0.4 and/ or the presence of cross-loading (Kim and Mueller, 1978). Following the process of items elimination, the remaining items were included in the factor analysis with examination of their loadings. The retained factors were assessed for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951). The factorability of the 21 barriers was examined at the outset of the analysis. Criteria 31 employed to determine the factorability of the correlation (Hair et al., 1998) included: the result of the intercorrelation matrix which showed that 16 (out of 21 items) were correlated (correlation coefficient r= 0.30 with at least one item) suggested reasonable factorability. In addition to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.661) which was above the commonly recommended value of 0.6, with significant the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (Chi square =1023.03, P=0.001), confirming that each item shared some common variance with other items. Based on the above indicators, principal component analysis was warranted suitable for these 16 items.

Ethical considerations

Permissions were obtained from the local Health Authorities and our institutions. Participants were provided with full explanation of the study with the emphasis on their right of not to participate. Informed consent forms were obtained and data confidentiality was maintained all through.

Results

The age of the included teachers ranged from 23 to 57 years, mean of 37.9±8.2 years, 82.0% were above the age of 30 years, 64.2% were resided in urban areas, 86.8% had a college degree or higher, 88.7% were married and 11.3% were divorced or widowed. Their median age at marriage was 20.0 years (ranged 17-31 years). Of the included women, 87/506 (17.2%) reported being previously examined for CC (Table 1). Of the included sample, 18.0% perceived above average risk for developing CC (7.7% above average and 10.3% much above average), 50.0% perceived below average risk and 32.0% of average risk. Table 1 also depicts the perceived personal risk score for the development of CC in relation to the different socio-demographic variables. The risk score showed non-normality (Shapiro-Wilks of 0.88, P=0.001), with a mean of -0.46±1.23 (median of -0.50, interquartile range of 1.0 to 0.0). Perceived risk was significantly higher among married women aged ≥40 years, and with previous history of CC examination, with no significant difference in relation to residence, family income and educational status.

Table 1.

Socio-Demographics and Perceived Personal Risk to Cervical Cancer of the Included Secondary School Female Teachers in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia

Characteristics Number (total =506) % Perceived risk score P value
Residence
 Urban 325 64.2 -0.47±1.21 0.147*
 Rural 181 35.8 -0.49±1.22
Education
 Technical diploma (secondary technical education) 67 13.2 -0.52±1.31 0.747*
 College or higher 439 86.8 -0.46±1.23
Marital Status
 Married 449 88.7 -0.69±1.20 0.008*
 Divorced/Widowed 57 11.3 -0.24±0.84
- Age at Marriage: mean ± SD (median) 21.0±4.7 (20.0)
- Number of living children: mean± SD(median) 3.9±2.5(3.0)
- Age in years: mean± SD 37.9±8.2
Age groups (years)
 < 30 91 18 -0.20±0.06 0.006**
 30 - < 40 178 35.2 -1.08±0.57
 ≥ 40 237 46.8 0.60±0.84
Family income: (monthly in Saudi Riyals)
 <6,000 143 28.3 -0.55±1.22 0.134**
 6,000 - <10,000 235 46.4 -0.49±1.23
 ≥ 10,000 128 25.3 -0.48±1.29
Current use of hormonal contraception 139 27.5
Perceived personal risk of cervical cancer
 Much below average 122 24.1
 Below average 131 25.9
 Average 162 32
 Above average 39 7.7
 Much above average 52 10.3
Ever screened for cervical cancer
 Yes 87 17.2 0.41±1.41 0.002*
 No 419 82.8 -0.54±1.17

SD, standard deviation; Using pap any method of of examination;

*

Mann Whitney;

**

Krusall Wallis tests significance; The perceived risk score ranged from much below average (-2); below average (-1); average (0); above average (1) and much above average (2)

The mean total knowledge score for signs and symptoms was 5.7±2.2 (median=6, IQR: 3-7). Those with “Above average” perceived risk had significantly higher overall knowledge score of possible signs of CC compared to other groups (6.3±2.1 vs. 5.6±2.2 vs.5.5±2.3 for “Above average”, “Average” and “Below average” respectively, P=0.018). Vaginal bleeding between periods and after menopause were the two most commonly correctly identified signs (46.6 % and 48.4% respectively). (Table 2). The mean total knowledge score for risk factors was 3.7 ±1.98 (median=4, IQR: 3-5), however, the scores were fairly similar among the three groups (3.70±2.11 vs. 3.78±2.19 vs. 3.73±1.76 for “Above average”, “Average” and “Below average” respectively, p= 0.156). “Not going for regular screening” and “Having a weakened immune system” were the most commonly identified risks (72.9% and 63.8% respectively), whereas “Having many sexual partners” and “Starting to have sex at young age” were the least identified (11.9% and 10.3%, respectively). (Table 2) The majority of participants were not sure of their ability to know early signs and symptoms of CC (61.1%) (Table 3) regardless of the magnitude of perceived risk of CC (P=0.689). Only 26% of them were aware of CC screening program, and those with perceived cancer risk “Above average” were more likely to be aware of this service (29% vs. 24.7% vs. 26.9% for “Above average”, “Average” and “Below Average” respectively, p=0.022). Most participants did not know the appropriate age for screening (70%) or the age for HPV vaccination (90.1%), and a small fraction of them (9.5%) was aware of the presence of a vaccine for CC. Pap test was identified as the chief test used for screening by 71.9% of participants, and those with perceived cancer risk “Average” were more likely to know so (64.8% vs. 75.9% vs. 71.9% for “Above average”, “Average” and “Below average” respectively, p=0.001). Yet, only 14.6% of participants ever had a Pap smear, and those with perceived cancer risk “Above average” were more likely to have had one (25.3% vs. 15.4% vs. 10.3% for “Above average”, “Average” and “Below average” respectively, P=0.002).

Table 2.

Correct Responses of Participants to the Possible Signs and Risk Factors of Cervical Cancer in Relation to the Perceived Cancer Cervix Risk

Possible signs Perceived risk and Correct Responses: no. (%)
Below average (n=253) Average risk (n=162) Above average risk (n=91) Total (n=506) P value*
1- Vaginal bleeding between periods 114 (45.1) 63 (38.9) 59 (64.8) 236(46.6) 0.002
2- Persistent lower back pain 62 (24.5) 35 (21.6) 22 (24.2) 119(23.5) 0.828
3- Persistent vaginal discharge that smells unpleasant 86 (34.0) 35 (21.6) 26 (28.6) 147(29.1) 0.11
4- Discomfort or pain during sex 69 (27.3) 32 (19.8) 36 (39.6) 137(27.1) 0.018
5- Menstrual periods that are heavier or longer than usual 109 (43.1) 48 (29.6) 43 (42.3) 200(39.5) 0.003
6- Vaginal bleeding after the menopause 127 (50.2) 60 (37.0) 58 (63.7) 245(48.4) 0.001
7- Persistent pelvic pain 74 (29.2) 41 (25.3) 23 (25.3) 138(27.3) 0.607
8- Vaginal bleeding during or after sex 55 (21.7) 26 (16.0) 32 (35.2) 113(22.3) 0.001
9- Blood in the stool or urine 43 (17.0) 25 (15.4) 18 (19.8) 86(17.0) 0.533
10- Unexplained weight loss 70 (27.7) 45 (27.8) 33 (36.3) 148(29.2) 0.5
 Total Score (total=10 points)
 Mean ±SD 5.5±2.3 5.6±2.2 6.3±2.1 5.7±2.2 0.018**
 Median (IQR) 5.0 (3.0-7.0) 5.00 (3.0-7.0) 6.0 (3.0-8.0) 6.0(3.0-7.0)
Risk factors
1- Infection with HPV (human papilloma virus) 39 (15.4) 39 (24.1) 16 (17.6) 0.001
2- Smoking any cigarettes at all 159 (62.8)  87 (53.7) 37 (40.7) 0.001
3- Having a weakened immune system! 175 (69.2) 103 (63.6) 45 (49.5) 0.001
4- Long term use of the contraceptive pill 152 (60.1) 98 (60.5) 57 (62.6) 0.91
5- Infection with Chlamydia (a sexually transmitted infection) 35 (13.8) 39 (24.1) 19 (20.9) 0.001
6- Starting to have sex at a young age (before age 17) 29 (11.5) 14 (8.6) 9 (9.9) 0.647
7- Having many sexual partners 34 (13.4) 19 (11.7) 7 (7.7) 0.105
8- Having many children 134 (53.0) 91 (56.2) 43 (47.3) 0.279
9- Not going for regular screening tests 185 (73.1) 106 (65.4) 78 (85.7) 0.001
Total score (out of 9 points):
Mean ±SD 3.73±1.76 3.78±2.19 3.70±2.11
Median (IQR) 4.0 (2.5-4.5) 4.0 (2.0-5.0) 0.156**

HIV/AIDS, immunosuppressant drugs or having a transplant;

*

Chi square test for independence;

**

Kruskal Wallis test; IQR, interquartile range

Table 3.

Experience and Knowledge of the Included Participants Towards Cervical Cancer Screening, HPV Vaccine and Pap Test in Relation to Their Perceived Risk (N=506)

Items Responses: no.(%)
Below average (n=253) Average (n=162) Above average (n=91) Total P value*
1- Ability to know early signs and symptoms of cervical cancer
 Excellent 4 (1.6) 2 (1.2) 4 (4.4) 10 (2.0) 0.689
 Good 70 (27.7) 45 (27.8) 24 (26.4) 139 (27.5)
 Not sure 153 (60.5) 100 (61.7) 56 (61.5) 309 (61.1)
 Do not know 26 (10.3) 15 (9.3) 7 (7.7) 48 (9.5)
2- Aware about cervical cancer screening program
 Yes 68 (26.9) 40 (24.7) 27 (29.7) 135 (26.7) 0.022
 No 93 (36.8) 83 (51.2) 32 (35.2) 208 (41.1)
 Do not know 92 (36.4) 39 (24.1) 32 (35.2) 163 (32.2)
3- Appropriate age for screening
 Do not know 168 (66.4) 122 (75.3) 64 (70.3) 354 (70.0) 0.079
 15-<20 7 (2.8) 3 (1.9) 0 10 (2.0)
 20-<30 12 (4.7) 3 (1.9) 0 15 (2.9)
 30- 35 27 (10.7) 12 (7.4) 4 (4.4) 43 (8.5)
 40 or more years 21 (8.3) 22 (13.6) 23 (25.3) 66 (13.0)
4- Vaccine for cervical cancer
 Yes 19 (7.5) 17 (10.5) 12 (13.2) 48 (9.5) 0.003
 No 140 (55.3) 97 (59.9) 65 (71.4) 302 (59.7)
 Do not know 94 (37.2) 48 (29.6) 14 (15.4) 156 (30.8)
5- Age at vaccination
 Do not know 232 (91.7) 145 (89.5) 79 (86.8) 456 (90.1) 0.081
 <20 4 (1.6) 2 (1.2) 0 6 (1.2)
 20 to 30 years 6 (2.4) 6 (3.7) 3 (3.3) 15 (2.9)
 > 30 years 10 (4.0) 9 (5.6) 9 (9.9) 28 (5.5)
6- Pap test is the chief test used for screening
 Do not know 36 (14.2) 27 (16.7) 32 (35.2) 95 (18.8) 0.001
 Not sure 35 (13.8) 12 (7.4) 0 47 (9.3)
 Yes 18 (71.9) 123 (75.9) 59 (64.8) 364 (71.9)
7- Ever having a Pap smear
 Yes 26 (10.3) 25 (15.4) 23 (25.3) 74 (14.6) 0.002
*

Chi-Square test

Logistic regression model showed, living in urban areas was the strongest predictor of being screened for CC (Odds ratio ‘OR’ 3.39; 95% confidence intervals ‘CI’= 1.76-6.46; p=0.001), whereas “Above Average” perceived cancer risk had modest predictive power (OR 1.72; 95% CI= 1.03-2.87; p=0.012). Awareness of risk factors was predicted mainly by higher awareness of signs of cancer (OR 2.5; 95% CI=, p=0.001) and by being screened for CC (OR 1.87; 95% CI= 1.14-2.94, p=0.036). Only higher awareness of cancer risk factors predicted awareness of its early signs (OR 2.49; 95% CI= 1.64-3.70, p=0.001) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Possible Predictors Using Logistic Regression Models for Cervical Cancer Screening, Awareness of Risk Factors and Signs of Cervical Cancer among the Included Secondary School Teachers, in Al Hassa

Independent variables Screening Awareness of risk factors Awareness of early signs
Odds ratio (95% C.I) P value Odds ratio (95% C.I) P value Odds ratio (95% C.I) P value
Age groups: < 30 years 1 1 1
 30 to <40 years 0.93(0.26-3.30) 0.915 0.57(0.20-1.65) 0.583 1.82(0.71-4.66) 0.21
 ≥ 40 years 0.65(0.27-1.55) 0.33 0.74(0.36-1.52) 0.301 0.81(0.42-1.57) 0.537
Marital status: Married 1.11(0.61-2.04) 0.735 0.69(0.41-1.16) 0.404 0.89(0.57-1.40) 0.627
Educational level: (College or higher) 1.71(0.81-3.60) 0.159 1.68(1.01-3.04) 0.162 0.78(0.47-1.29) 0.332
Residence: (urban) 3.39(1.76-6.46) 0.001 1.20(0.66-2.29) 0.089 1.56(0.56-2.58) 0.397
Perceived risk: (above average) 1.72(1.03-2.87) 0.012 0.82(0.59-1.15) 0.147 1.18(0.88-1.58) 0.227
Risk factors awareness: (higher) 1.64(0.94-2.88) 0.082 - - - -- 2.49(1.64-3.70) 0.001
Signs of cancer awareness: (knowledgeable) 1.27(0.75-2.17) 0.376 2.50(1.65-3.80) 0.001 --- --
Cervical cancer screening: Yes --- -- 1.87(1.14-2.94) 0.036 1.30(0.78-2.21) 0.343
 Percent predicted for the model 86 73.9 63.4
 Hosmer-Lemeshow Chi square (P value) 8.54 (0.335) 9.41(0.309) 10.82(0.212)

Exploratory factor analysis: the three components model explained 67.9% of the variation in the perceived barriers towards CC screening (CCS) in the studied group. A predefined barrier was considered as being loaded on a specific component when its absolute factor loading was < 4. Exploratory factor analysis with three factors solution showed that personal fears (fear of screening being embarrassing or painful) was the major factor that hinder CCS with high loading eigenvalue of 4.392, explaining 30.8% of the barriers among the sample toward utilization of CCS. The second factor with high eigenvalue of 0.675, and explaining 21.2% of the barriers to CCS was related to health care, including items related to limited information on CC in the community and lack of screening sites in the community, the third factor included cultural and social factors mainly embarrassing to tell people about (Table 5).

Table 5.

Perceived Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening and the Results of Principal Components Analysis

Perceived barriers* Perceived barriers Factors loadings **
No. (%) Factor 1 Personal Factor 2 Health care Factor 3 Cultural and social Communality
1- There are no screening sites in the community 307(60.7) 0.884 0.781
2- There is limited information on cervical cancer in the community 302(59.7) 0.887 0.733
3- The screening sites are too far from where I live 151(29.8)
4- There are no health education programs to promote screening 416(82.2) 0.801 0.672
5- Lacking proper communication with providers 101(19.9)
6- Providers are not trustworthy 56(11.1)
7- I do not have signs or symptoms 239(47.2)
8- I am not at risk of the disease 212(41.9) 0.474 0.503
9- Fears of the results of screening 255(50.4) 0.758 0.632
10- I do not know what the test is all about 218(43.1) 0.701 0.611
11- I do not know any of screening sites 227(44.9) 0.481 0.503
12- Screening is embarrassing 201(39.7) 0.893 0.692
13- Screening is painful 301(59.5) 0.805 0.701
14- I do not have time for testing 169(33.4)
15- Previous bad experience with testing 122(24.1)
16- Can’t afford money for testing 98(19.4)
17- Embarrassing to tell people about 269(53.2) 0.849 0.744
18- No idea about what other people think 198(39.1) 0.511 0.522
19- Stigma following the diagnosis 113(22.3)
20- Unless there is an illness, community will not accept screening. 109(21.5)
21- My husband and family would not allow me to go for screening 192(37.9) 0.711 0.639
 Eigenvalue 4.392 2.29 1.641
 Cronbach’s alpha 0.701 0.675 0.581
 % variance explained 30.8 21.2 15.9
*

Not mutually exclusive;

**

Principal component analysis using Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin for sample adequacy, 0.661; Bartlett’s test for sphericity; Chi, 1023.03, P=0.001

Discussion

This cross sectional study revealed low perceived risk in addition to poor knowledge of CC related risk factors, signs and preventive measures among the studied secondary school female teachers in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia. According to our protocol, 65.4% and 63.4% were considered not-knowledgeable of CC risk factors and early signs and symptoms respectively. In the present study, personal fears together with the health care-related factors constituted about 60% of barriers to utilizing CCS. The study findings will help to develop policies to enhance awareness of CC promoting its screening uptake and prevention among females.

The present study revealed that only 17.2% of respondents had ever screened for CC, this rate of screening is in close agreement with other studies reported rates from 12% to 27% (Gichangi et al., 2003; Gharoro and Ikeanyi, 2006; Mutyaba et al., 2006; Were et al., 2011). However, it is higher than the 5% prevalence of 5-year CCS reported by the WHO for developing countries (WHO, 1986), the 6% reported by a Kenyan (Sudenga et al., 2013) and Tanzanian (Cunningham et al., 2015) studies and the 7% by an Ugandan study (Twinomujuni et al., 2015). In contrast, higher rate was reported by the 2004 Nunavik Health Survey, where 82% of respondents reported having a Pap smear in the previous 2 years and 60% in the past 12 months (Dodin and Blanchet, 2007). This suboptimal uptake of CCS is unexpected since Saudi women had good access to conduct Pap smear tests at teaching hospitals in comparison to expatriates (Sancho-Garnier et al., 2013). However, this is probably because the majority of studied female teachers perceived themselves to be at average or below average risk of CC, which was previously found to be associated with lower uptake of CCS (Mutyaba al., 2006; Were et al., 2011). The finding that most studied teachers perceived their CC risk as average or below average is consistent with other studies measuring comparative risk perceptions for CC, other cancers and STIs (Eiser and Cole, 2002; Leval et al., 2011; Wolfers et al., 2011). In the studied cohort, perceived risk was significantly higher among married women aged ≥40 years, and those with previous history of CC examination, a finding similar to what was reported by other studies (Mingo et al., 2012; Staci et al., 2013). According to this observation, single, young women and those with no history of CC examination are good targets for programs designed to improve awareness of personal risk of CC.

The study showed that about two thirds of the respondents were not knowledgeable about CC related risk factors, signs and symptoms. This finding has been documented in several studies both in both developed and developing countries (Dendash et al., 2005., Kietpeerakool et al., 2009; Notara et al., 2012; Kamzol et al., 2013; Al-Shaikh et al., 2014; Aldhafar et al., 2016). The questions regarding risk factors for CC unmasked important knowledge gaps; nearly one-quarter knew that infection with HPV (human papilloma virus) is a risk factor for CC. However another study conducted in Saudi Arabia revealed higher correct answer 41% (Al-Darwish et al., 2014) probably because this study was conducted on college students, some of them were medical. Half of the participants identified that smoking is one of the risk factors for CC. A similar finding was described by Al-Darwish et al., (2014) who showed that 41.5% knew that smoking is one of the risk factors for CC, while in South African and Turkish studies, this figure dropped to only 18%, and 17% respectively (Hoque et al., 2008; Koc, 2015). The current study also revealed that “Not going for regular screening” and “Having a weakened immune system” were the most commonly identified risks, similar to another study conducted among female teachers in Saudi Arabia (Aldhafar et al., 2016). Although “Multiple sexual partners” and “Early onset of sexual intercourse” are known strong risk factors (WHO, 2007), both were the least identified ones. This is largely due to the traditional/religious practices in the community that forbid any illegal sexual relations. For CC signs, post-menopausal and inter-menstrual bleeding were the two most commonly correctly identified signs. This is consistent with a recent study conducted in Saudi Arabia among female school teachers (Aldhafar et al., 2016). Those with “Above average” perceived risk had significantly higher overall knowledge score of possible signs of CC compared to other groups, which emphasizes the effect of risk perception on knowledge (Marlow et al., 2009; Tomasz et al., 2012).

Several studies have reported that there is lack of the awareness regarding CC screening and availability of vaccine, among health professionals and in general public (Ilter et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2012;Ortashi et al., 2013; Khan et al., 2014; Koc, 2015). In the present study, most participants were not aware about CC screening program, the appropriate age for screening or the age for HPV vaccination. The respondents’ lack of knowledge regarding HPV infection could explain the lack of awareness regarding the availability of the vaccine; such that only 9.5% of them were aware of the presence of such vaccine.

This study also revealed a major defect in practice of CCS; although Pap test was identified as the chief test used for screening by 71.9% of participants, only 14.6% of them got Pap test done. The situation in United Arab Emirates is even worse, where a study conducted among school teachers showed that most of them never had a pap test despite good knowledge of CCS (Bakheit et al., 2004). This could be due to unawareness of the advantages of Pap smear test or due to poor health-seeking behavior. Considering that this study was done among secondary school teachers, 71% awareness of Pap smear test is still low. It was also found that the majority of participants were not sure of their ability to know early signs and symptoms of CC (61.1%), this is very poor indeed and not acceptable for a disease that is amenable to treatment following the early detection of the pre-invasive stage (El Banna et al., 2014).

In this study, regression model revealed that living in urban areas was the strongest predictor of being screened for CC. This is consistent with results obtained in other studies (Hislop et al., 2000; Yeung and Hendrickson, 2004). Access to CCS in rural areas has been shown to be more difficult due to health centers are not being within walking distances, lack of public transportation, and cost (Mupepi et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015). This is not the case in Saudi Arabia discussing costs and transportation but can be partially explained by the presence of CC screening sites and centers in urban areas compared to rural. The finding that perceived CC personal risk was a moderate predictor of uptake of cervical screening is corroborated by study conducted among Chinese women (Leung and Leung, 2010). It is therefore important for policy makers and program managers to consider improving the perception of women as an integral component of any program aimed at increasing the uptake of CCS. Leung and Leung, 2010 identified other predictors of being screened as age above 37 years, attendance of tertiary institution of learning, and good knowledge of risk factors. However, age, knowledge and levels of education were not found to be predictors in this study. Among the predictors of a better knowledge level were education level and income as revealed from different studies (Hussain et al., 2014; Khan et al., 2014). On the contrary, the current study revealed that only higher awareness of cancer risk factors predicted awareness of its early signs. It is therefore important that health promotion efforts focus on improving women’s knowledge of risk factors.

In this study, the identified barriers to CCS were grouped into 3 categories; personal factors, health care related and cultural and social barriers. Personal factors included fear of screening being embarrassing or painful, fear of screening result, and insufficient information on screening test. Health care related barriers included lack of screening sites, limited information on CC, and lack of health education programs promoting CCS. Cultural and social barriers included embarrassment to tell people about CCS, husband and family not allowing screening, and not knowing what other people think. This is consistent with other findings from previous studies, where women boycotted screening due to attitudes of fear, lack of knowledge, inaccessibility of health services, cultural beliefs, and the belief that CC is an incurable disease (Bingham et al., 2003; Mutyaba et al., 2006; Mupepi et al., 2011; Daley et al., 2013; Khan et al., 2014; Marlow et al., 2015). Fort et al., (2011) emphasized that long waiting queues and procedural delays, bad behavior and attitude of physicians and providers, unreliable diagnosis and poor satisfaction in governmental hospitals, non-availability of staff, and the perception of good health were the most cited reasons for low screening uptake. There is a need to address misconceptions and fears about CCS activities together with the health system barriers in order to increase the uptake. That can best be done by providing the women with information about the benefits of early screening, early detection, and its association with lower incidence and mortality rates from cervical cancer (Spadea et al., 2008; Daley et al., 2013).

Study limitations

The results of the current study should be viewed in the lights of the following limitation, the cross-sectional of the used design allow for inevitable chances of recall bias.

The present study pointed out the low perceived risk, poor awareness of CC related risk factors and signs, early detection and low screening practices among and educated cohort of secondary school female teachers in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia which solidifies the need for education programs on CC and its prevention in the lights of the revealed barriers especially the personal fears and those related to health care services. Initiation of culturally accepted CC screening awareness program addressing the numerous barriers women encountered is needed to promote their health and the future generations as they represent key persons for community change.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. Aldhafar AS, Alhulaybi AA, Khan TM. Knowledge, early signs and symptoms, risk factors and prevention of cervical cancer among teachers in the Urban schools in Al-Ahsa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int J Sci Stud. 2016;4:73–6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abudukadeer A, Azam S, Mutailipu AZ, et al. Knowledge and attitude of Uyghur women in Xinjiang province of China related to the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:110. doi: 10.1186/s12957-015-0531-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alhamlan FS, Al-Qahtani AA, Al-Ahdal MN. Current studies on human papillomavirus in Saudi Arabia. J Infn Dev Cntries. 2015;9:571–6. doi: 10.3855/jidc.6538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Darwish AA, Al-Naim AF, Al-Mulhim KS, et al. Knowledge about cervical cancer early warning signs and symptoms, risk factors and vaccination among students at a medical school in Al-Ahsa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:2529–32. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.6.2529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Al-Shaikh GK, Almussaed EM, Fayed AA, et al. Knowledge of Saudi female university students regarding cervical cancer and acceptance of the human papilloma virus vaccine. Saudi Med J. 2014;35:1223–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ali F, kuelker R, Wassie B. Understanding cervical cancer in the context of developing countries. Ann Trop Med Public Health. 2012;5:3–15. [Google Scholar]
  7. Aswathy S, Quereshi MA, Kurian B, Leelamoni K. Cervical cancer screening:Current knowledge and practice among women in a rural population of Kerala, India. Indian J Med Res. 2012;136:205–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Alzahrani AJ, Obeid OE, Hassan MI, Almulhim AA. Screening of pregnant women attending the antenatal care clinic of a tertiary hospital in eastern Saudi Arabia for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections. Indian J Sexual. Tran. 2010;31:81–6. doi: 10.4103/2589-0557.74976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruni L, Barrionuevo-Rosas L, Albero G, et al. ICO information centre on HPV and cancer (HPV information centre). Human papillomavirus and related diseases in Saudi Arabia. Summary Report 2015. 2015:12–23. [Google Scholar]
  10. Blumenthal PD, Gaffikin L. Cervical cancer prevention:making programs more appropriate and pragmatic. JAMA. 2005;294:2225–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.17.2225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bakheit NM, Bu Haroon AI, Emirates UA. The knowledge, attitude and practice of Pap smear among local schoolteachers in the Sharjah district. Middle East J of Family Med. 2004;4:4. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bingham A, Bishop A, Coffey P, et al. Factors affecting utilization of cervical cancer prevention services in low-resource settings. Salud Public Mex. 2003;45:408–16. doi: 10.1590/s0036-36342003000900015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cunningham MS, Skrastins E, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccine acceptability among rural and urban women in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e005828. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–34. [Google Scholar]
  15. Daley E, Perrin K, Vamos C, et al. Confusion about Pap smears:lack of knowledge among high-risk women. J Women’s Health. 2013;22:67–74. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2012.3667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dodin S, Blanchet C. Women’s Health and preventive sexual behaviour in men and women. Que´bec: Institut national de sante publique de Que´bec, Nunavik Re-gional Board of Health and Social Services. 2007:l6. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dendash KF, Abd El ALL HS, Rafaat AH. Women’s health problems in Egypt focusing on cancer cervix, national population council and Suez canal university- faculty of Medicine. 2005 [Google Scholar]
  18. El Banna N, Al Eyd G, Saeed RS. High risk human papillomavirus infection among women with Pap smear tests negative for intraepithelial lesions or malignancy. Int J of Med Pub Health. 2014;4:102–6. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ebu NI, Mupepi SC, Siakwa MP, Sampselle CM. Knowledge, practice, and barriers toward cervical cancer screening in Elmina, Southern Ghana. Int J Womens Health. 2012;7:31–9. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S71797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Eiser JR, Cole N. Participation in cervical screening as a function of perceived risk, barriers and need for cognitive closure. J Health Psychol. 2002;7:99–105. doi: 10.1177/1359105302007001657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fort VK, Makin MS, Siegler AJ, Ault K, Rochat R. Barriers to cervical cancer screening in Mulanje, Malawi:a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:125–31. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S17317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gari A, Asiri A, Mohammed A, et al. The awareness of the HPV’s association with cervical cancer and the HPV vaccine among Saudi females. Life Sci J. 2012;9:2538–46. [Google Scholar]
  23. GLOBOCAN. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/pages/fact_sheets_cancer.asprx .
  24. Gharoro E, Ikeanyi E. An appraisal of the level of awareness and utilization of the Pap Smear as a cervical cancer screening test among female health workers in a tertiary health institution. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:1063–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00579.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gichangi P, Estambale B, Bwayo J, et al. Knowledge and practice about cervical cancer and Pap smear testing among patients at Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13:827–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2003.13612.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hussain S, Nasare V, Kumari M, et al. Perception of human papillomavirus infection, cervical cancer and HPV vaccination in North Indian population. PLoS One. 2014;9:e112861. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoque M, Hoque E, Kader S.B. Evaluation of cervical cancer screening program at a rural community of South Africa. East Afr J Public Health. 2008;5:111–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hall S, Weinman J, Marteau TM. The motivating impact of informing women smokers of a link between smoking and cervical cancer:the role of coherence. Health Psychol. 2004;23:419–24. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.4.419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hislop TG, Teh C, Lai A, et al. Sociodemographic factors associated with cervical cancer screening in BC Chinese women. BCMJ. 2000;42:456–60. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, et al. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ilter E, Celik A, Haliloglu B, et al. Women’s knowledge of Pap smear test and human papillomavirus acceptance of HPV vaccination to themselves and their daughters in an Islamic society. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:1058–62. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181dda2b9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jo W, Marta B, Laura MJW. Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England:a population-based survey. J Med Screen. 2009;16:199–204. doi: 10.1258/jms.2009.009073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Koc Z. University students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding cervical cancer, human papillomavirus, and human papillomavirus vaccines in Turkey. J Am Col Health. 2015;63:13–22. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2014.963107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Khan GJ, Naeem HS, Khan S, et al. Understanding and responsiveness level about cervical cancer and its avoidance among young women of Pakistan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:4877–83. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.12.4877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kamzol W, Jaglarz K, Tomaszewski KA, Puskulluoglu M, Krzysztof K. Assessment of knowledge about cervical cancer and its prevention among female students aged 17-26 years. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;166:196–203. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kietpeerakool C, Phianmongkhoi Y, Jitvatcharanun K, Siriratwatakul U, Srisomboon J. Knowledge, awareness and attitudes of female sex workers towards HPV infection, cervical cancer, and cervical smears in Thailand. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107:216–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim J, Mueller C. Factor analysis:statistical methods and practical issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  38. Leval A, Sundstrom K, Ploner A, et al. Assessing perceived risk and STI prevention behavior:a national population-based study with special reference to HPV. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020624. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Leung SS, Leung I. Cervical cancer screening:knowledge, health perception and attendance rate among Hong Kong Chinese women. Int J Women Health. 2010;2:22l–8. doi: 10.2147/ijwh.s10724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Marlow LA, Waller J, Wardle J. Barriers to cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women:a qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2015;41:248–54. doi: 10.1136/jfprhc-2014-101082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mingo AM, Panozzo CA, DiAngi YT, et al. Cervical cancer awareness and screening in Botswana. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:638–44. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318249470a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Mupepi SC, Sampselle CM, Johnson TRB. Knowledge, attitudes, and demographic factors influencing cervical cancer screening behavior of Zimbabwean women. J Women’s Health. 2011;20:943–52. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Marlow LA, Waller J, Wardle J. The impact of human papillomavirus information on perceived risk of cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18:373–6. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mutyaba T, Mmiro FA, Weiderpass E. Knowledge, attitudes and practices on cervical cancer screening among the medical workers of Mulago Hospital, Uganda. BMC. 2006;6:13. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-6-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Notara V, Soultatou P, Tselika A. Lay knowledge of HPV infection and the vaccine against HPV in Greece. Health Sci J. 2012;6:270–9. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ortashi O, Raheel H, Shalal M, Osman N. Awareness and knowledge about human papillomavirus infection and vaccination among women in UAE. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:6077–80. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.10.6077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Parkin DM, Bray FI, Devesa SS. Cancer burden in the year 2000. The global picture. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:S4–66. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00267-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Szaboova V, Svihrova V, Hudeckova V. Selected risk factors for cervical cancer and barriers to cervical cancer screening. Acta Med Martiniana. 2014 DOI:10.24 78/acm-2014-0009. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sancho-Garnier H, Khazraji YC, Cherif MH, et al. Overview of cervical cancer screening practices in the extended Middle East and North Africa countries. Vaccine. 2013;31:51–7. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sudenga L, Rositch F, Otieno A, et al. Brief Report:Knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived risk of cervical cancer among Kenyan women. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:895–9. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31828e425c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sudenga SL, Rositch AF, Otieno WA, Smith JS. Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived risk of cervical cancer among Kenyan women:brief report. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:895–9. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31828e425c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Spadea T, Bellini S, Kunst A, et al. The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups:a review. Prev Med. 2008;50:159–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lee EE, Fogg L, Menon U. Knowledge and beliefs related to cervical cancer and screening among Korean American women. West J Nurs Res. 2008;30:960–74. doi: 10.1177/0193945908319250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Tomasz N, Jo W, Kathryn AR, Laura AV M. Perceived risk of cervical cancer among pre-screening age women (18-24 years):the impact of information about cervical cancer risk factors and the causal role of HPV. Sex Transm Infect. 2012;88:400–6. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2012-050482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Twinomujuni C, Nuwaha F, Babirye JN. Understanding the low level of cervical cancer screening in Masaka Uganda using the ASE model:A community-based survey. PloS One. 2015;10:e0128498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Victoria K, Aaron J, Kevin A, Roger R. Barriers to cervical cancer screening in Mulanje, Malawi:a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:125–31. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S17317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Were E, Nyaberi Z, Buziba N. Perceptions of risk and barriers to cervical cancer screening at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (MTRH), Eldoret, Kenya. Afr Health Sci. 2011;11:58–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Wolfers M, de Zwart O, Kok G. Adolescents in the Netherlands underestimate risk for sexually transmitted infections and deny the need for sexually transmitted infection testing. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2011;25:311–19. doi: 10.1089/apc.2010.0186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. World Health Organization. Cervical cancer, human papillomavirus (HPV), and HPV vaccines –key points for policy-makers and health professionals. Geneva: WHO Press 2007; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  60. World Health Organization. Control of cancer of the cervix uteri. bulletin of the world health organization. 1986;64:607–18. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Yeung PH-Y, Henrickson M. Vol. 121. New Zealand: The University of Auckland School of Population Health; 2004. A pilot study of knowledge and access to sexual wellbeing services of Chinese women living in New Zealand. the Inaugural International Asian Health Conference:Asian health and wellbeing, now and into the future; 2004; pp. 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhao FH, Tiggelaar SM, Hu SY, et al. A multi-center survey of HPV knowledge and attitudes toward HPV vaccination among women, government officials, and medical personnel in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13:2369–78. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.5.2369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention : APJCP are provided here courtesy of West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention

RESOURCES