Evidence mapPaperPMID 40922616Full record

ArticleAfrican journal of primary health care & family medicine2025

Exploring primary health care nurses' perceptions of cervical cancer screening in Leribe, Lesotho.

Maliketso G Polane, Siyabonga B Dlamini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in African journal of primary health care & family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Maliketso G PolaneDepartment of Public Health Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban. 220064022@stu.ukzn.ac.za.
Siyabonga B Dlamini

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer ranks fourth among cancers recorded globally and is the second most common cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality in women. Although cervical cancer is fatal, the early discovery of precancerous cells by extensive and recurrent screening could lead to a significant decline in incidence. However, the acceptance of cervical cancer screening is low, even among healthcare workers.

aimTo explore the perceptions of primary care nurses about cervical cancer screening.

settingThe study was carried out in four primary health care centres (PHCCs) in the Leribe district.

methodsThis is an exploratory qualitative study. The researcher purposively selected and interviewed 10 nurses at the selected PHCCs. The data were analysed thematically.

resultsNurses' perceptions of cervical cancer screening influenced whether they routinely detect the disease. Certain perceptions, such as being susceptible to cancer, fear of cancer consequences, feeling relieved by negative results, high self-efficacy, training and witnessing deaths, all encouraged routine screening. Those that discouraged routine screening included fear of positive testing, lack of results, perceived lack of confidence and privacy in screeners and low self-efficacy.

conclusionThese findings show that nurses' decisions to undergo a regular screening are either encouraged or discouraged by their perceptions about cervical cancer screening. They also imply that the general public may be impacted by these perceptions as well.Contribution: These findings add significantly to the body of knowledge about how policies can be improved to improve nursing screening programmes, which can improve screening rates among the general population.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningNursesPrimary Care NursingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicLesothoMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQualitative Researchcervical cancer screeningnegative perceptionsnurses’ perceptionspositive perceptionssubsequent screening

Identifiers

PMID40922616
PMCPMC12506822

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.