Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42082962›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

Perceived barriers and facilitators to conventional cervical screening: a qualitative study among women, primary health workers and community representatives in Uganda.

Gertrude Nanyonjo, Elien De Paepe, Mathias Wambuzi, Sadat Kasule, Brenda Okech, Ali Ssetaala, Heleen Vermandere, Olivier Degomme

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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

8 authors.

Gertrude NanyonjoCommunity Studies Department, Uganda Virus Research Institute-Clinical Research Program Initiative, Entebbe, Uganda. gnanyonjo@crp.or.ug.
Elien De PaepeInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Mathias WambuziCommunity Studies Department, Uganda Virus Research Institute-Clinical Research Program Initiative, Entebbe, Uganda.
Sadat KasuleCommunity Studies Department, Uganda Virus Research Institute-Clinical Research Program Initiative, Entebbe, Uganda.
Brenda OkechCommunity Studies Department, Uganda Virus Research Institute-Clinical Research Program Initiative, Entebbe, Uganda.
Ali SsetaalaCommunity Studies Department, Uganda Virus Research Institute-Clinical Research Program Initiative, Entebbe, Uganda.
Heleen VermandereInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Olivier DegommeInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

European Commission grant agreement no. 964418 (29.1.2021)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCervical cancer (CC) is the most common cancer among women in Uganda, with many being diagnosed when the disease is in an advanced stage. Visual Inspection with Acetic acid (VIA) remains the most readily available CC screening method in most health facilities in Uganda, but with low screening coverage. This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to CC screening in Uganda.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted between March 2022 and March 2023 in Mukono, and Wakiso. Through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) data was collected on perceived barriers and facilitators to CC screening among women aged 25-65 years, primary health care workers (PHC), and community representatives (local authorities and members of civil society organisations). Sixteen FGDs were conducted with 8-12 participants per group. Four FGDs with women (57 participants), four with community representatives (35participants) and four FGDs with PHC workers (32participants). Thematic analysis was performed using deductive and inductive coding guided by the social ecological model.

resultsPerceived barriers and facilitators to CC screening emerged at multiple levels. At the individual level, women identified limited knowledge about CC screening as a major barrier, alongside several forms of fears, including fear of exposing private parts, fear of positive screening results, and concerns regarding the potential costs of treatment. At the interpersonal level, inadequate support from partners, peers, and family hindered CC screening uptake. Institutional barriers included negative attitude of health worker, prolonged waiting times, and long distances to health facilities. At the community level, stigma such as being labeled adulterous for seeking CC screening services discouraged participation. Conversely, facilitators of CC screening included awareness of the benefits of screening and experience sharing at the individual level, community sensitization and decentralization of services at the community level; and availability of accessible treatment services at the institutional level.

conclusionDespite free, publicly available CC screening services in Uganda, women continue to encounter numerous barriers that influence both access to and utilization of these services. Enhanced community sensitization is essential to improve awareness of the importance of early CC screening. Additionally, there is a critical need to ensure that subsequent care and treatment services are more financially accessible to all women. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchUgandaBarriersCervical cancerCervical cancer screeningCommunityFacilitatorsWomen

Identifiers

PMID42082962
PMCPMC13288806

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.