Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Risk factors for utilization of cervical cancer screening services: Crude and age-adjusted analysis using logistic regression, 2010

From: Utilization of cervical cancer screening services and its associated factors among primary school teachers in Ilala Municipality, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Variable Crude Age - adjusted
  OR (95 % CI) P value OR (95 % CI) P value
Age group (in years)     
 20–29 Ref    
 30–39 0.60(0.35–1.04) 0.064 - -
 40–49 0.51(0.26–0.99) 0.047 - -
 50 and above 0.71(0.37–1.42) 0.351 - -
Marital status     
 Single Ref   Ref  
 Married 1.29(0.64–2.58) 0.472 1.77(0.83–3.75) 0.139
 Widowed/divorced 0.91(0.30–2.72) 0.865 1.29(0.40–4.23) 0.671
Education level     
 Secondary Ref   Ref  
 Higher 1.20(0.68–2.11) 0.526 1.28(0.72–2.28) 0.397
Parity     
 Zero parity Ref   Ref  
 Para one 0.76(0.34–1.72) 0.532 0.90(0.40–2.02) 0.792
 Multi-parity 1.05(0.51–2.19) 0.884 1.55(0.71–3.38) 0.275
 Grand-multi parity 1.74 (074–4.09) 0.2 3.05(1.15–8.06) 0.025
Life-time sex partners     
One Ref   Ref  
 Two or more 1.57(0.79–3.10) 0.195 2.17(1.04–4.54) 0.038
Ever used contraceptives     
 Yes Ref   Ref  
 No 0.72(0.46–1.13) 0.156 0.69(0.44–1.08) 0.105
Knows cervical cancer is preventable     
 Yes Ref   Ref  
 No 0.51(0.14–1.80) 0.285 0.48(0.14–1.72) 0.261
 I don’t know 0.13(0.05–0.29) <0.001 0.13(0.06–0.29) <0.001
Involve spouse in making decision     
 Yes Ref   Ref  
 No 3.53(2.11–5.91) <0.001 3.73(2.22–6.26) <0.001
Procedures for screening is disgraceful     
 Yes Ref   Ref  
 No 1.41(0.64–3.15) 0.392 1.35(0.60–3.05) 0.463
  1. Bolded results are statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 (Wald P value). OR denotes Odds Ratios and 95%CI denote 95 % confidence intervals