Women’s autonomy and discrimination relevant to cervical cancer screening
Résumé fourni par la source
Introduction: Cervical cancer remains the fourth most common cancer affecting women worldwide, with large geographical variations in incidence and mortality rates. The objective of this study is to determine whether women's autonomy is predictive of the use of cervical cancer screening services in Senegal. Method: This was a descriptive and analytical cross-sectional study of a sample of 312 women. Data were analyzed using R 4.2 software. Logistic regression was used to analyze associations between indicators of women's autonomy and cervical cancer screening practices. Results: Compared with women whose partners made the decision regarding cervical cancer screening, women who reported making the decision themselves (AOR: 10.07; 95% CI: 2.72, 37.33) or jointly with their partner (AOR: 5.34; 95% CI: 1.35, 21.21) were more likely to have undergone screening. Women who were aware of the existence of a cervical cancer screening test were also more likely to have been screened than those who were not aware of it (AOR: 7.67; 95% CI: 1.41, 41.61). In contrast, women residing in Dakar were more likely to have undergone cervical cancer screening than those residing in the Kédougou region (AOR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.96). Conclusion: This study shows that increased autonomy among women predicts greater use of cervical cancer screening services by women. Therefore, policy interventions should focus on empowering women to make autonomous decisions about their health.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Women’s autonomy and discrimination relevant to cervical cancer screening
- Date Crossref
- 14/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Frontiers Media SA
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.