Skip to main content

Table 1 Bivariate and multivariate correlates of cervical cancer (CC) screening among alters

From: Mediators and moderators of the effect of the game changers for cervical cancer prevention intervention on cervical cancer screening among previously unscreened social network members in Uganda

Variable

Not screened (n = 59)

Screened (n = 44)

P value

OR (95% CI)*

Index CC-related processes at month 6

    

CC internalized stigma

1.07 (0.23)

1.00 (0)

0.02

0 (0, -); p = 1.0

Sharing CC screening experience

1.65 (0.48)

1.91 (0.23)

< 0.001

12.94 (2.99, 56.07)

CC knowledge

11.34 (3.69)

14.45 (3.32)

< 0.001

1.28 (1.12, 1.47)

CC risk management self-efficacy

8.77 (1.87)

9.30 (1.77)

0.15

1.15 (0.91, 1.45)

CC prevention advocacy self-efficacy

9.26 (1.49)

9.51 (1.32)

0.19

1.08 (0.80, 1.46)

CC prevention advocacy

3.90 (1.20)

4.59 (0.94)

0.001

2.03 (1.29, 3.19)

Mean CC screening advocacy across all alters

2.06 (0.11)

2.19 (0.22)

< 0.001

105.8 (6.4, 1735.2)

Alter CC-related processes at month 6

    

CC knowledge

7.36 (3.80)

11.55 (3.62)

< 0.001

1.31 (1.15, 1.48)

CC prevention advocacy

1.88 (0.86)

3.70 (1.32)

< 0.001

3.43 (2.19, 5.37)

CC risk management self-efficacy

7.15 (2.04)

9.63 (4.85)

< 0.001

1.87 (1.31, 2.66)

CC screening self-efficacy

1.99 (0.04)

1.99 (0.03)

0.48

513 (0.00, 73 mil)

CC enacted stigma

1.66 (0.42)

1.58 (0.35)

0.29

0.52 (0.18, 1.56)

  1. * Bivariate analysis was conducted using 2-tailed independent t-tests. Multiple logistic regression models of alter uptake of CC screening included the month 6 measure of alter CC screening as the dependent variable, and the month 6 and baseline measures of the predictor as independent variables
  2. OR = odds ration; CI = confidence interval
Back to article page

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us