ABSTRACT:
Background: Early detection through screening programs remains fundamental to cervical cancer prevention. However, validated instruments to measure knowledge and attitudes in rural populations are limited. Objectives: This study aimed to (1) validate a survey instrument designed to evaluate knowledge and attitudes regarding cervical cancer screening among rural women using path analysis methodology, and (2) examine the relationships between knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors, identifying key facilitators and barriers to screening participation in this population. Methods: A structured questionnaire assessing cervical cancer risk factors, screening methods, and attitudes was administered to 80 rural women in Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu, India. Path analysis techniques were employed to examine the interrelationships among knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors. Results: The path model demonstrated adequate fit indices (CFI=1.00, GFI=1.00, RMSEA=0.000), revealing a complex framework underlying knowledge and attitudes. Educational attainment emerged as a significant predictor of knowledge (ß=0.522, p<0.001), which subsequently influenced attitudes toward screening (ß=0.462, p<0.001). Socioeconomic factors demonstrated substantial influence on both knowledge and attitudes. Conclusion: Findings underscore the necessity for tailored interventions addressing specific attitudinal barriers and knowledge deficits. Understanding these determinants can inform public health strategies that reduce barriers and promote proactive health-seeking behaviors among underserved populations.
Cite this article:
M. Sankara Selvi. Validation of a Knowledge and Attitude Assessment Tool for Cervical Cancer Screening among Rural Women: A Path Analysis Approach. Asian Journal of Nursing Education and Research. 2026;16(2):123-8. doi: 10.52711/2349-2996.2026.00025
Cite(Electronic):
M. Sankara Selvi. Validation of a Knowledge and Attitude Assessment Tool for Cervical Cancer Screening among Rural Women: A Path Analysis Approach. Asian Journal of Nursing Education and Research. 2026;16(2):123-8. doi: 10.52711/2349-2996.2026.00025 Available on: https://ajner.com/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2026-16-2-10
9. REFERENCES:
1. World Health Organization. Cervical cancer. WHO Fact Sheet. 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer
2. Ferlay J, Laversanne M, Ervik M, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023; 73(1): 123-134. doi:10.3322/caac.21708
3. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2022; 8(2):e191-e203.
4. Basu P, Malvi SG, Joshi S, et al. Vaccine efficacy against persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 infection at 10 years after one, two, and three doses of quadrivalent HPV vaccine in girls in India: a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 22(11): 1518-1529.
5. Gamit CL, Patel PR, Sharma R. Knowledge and awareness about cervical cancer and its prevention among women attending tertiary care hospital. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2022; 9(2): 678-683.
6. Usha K, Priya M, Selvam S. Barriers to cervical cancer screening among rural women in Tamil Nadu. J Family Med Prim Care. 2023; 12(4): 756-762.
7. McBride E, Tatar O, Rosberger Z, et al. Emotional response to testing positive for human papillomavirus at cervical cancer screening: a mixed method systematic review with meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2022; 16(3): 327-363.
8. Thomas S, Chintha S, Nayar KR. Barriers to cervical cancer screening in rural India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024; 25(1): 55-61.
9. Balogun MR, Odukoya OO, Oyediran MA, Ujomu PI. Cervical cancer awareness and preventive practices: a challenge for female urban and rural dwellers in Lagos, Nigeria. Pan Afr Med J. 2012; 13: 9.
10. Dhamija R, Sehgal A, Luthra UK. Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding cervical cancer among rural women in India. J Indian Med Assoc. 1993; 91(1): 37-43.
11. Nelson DE, Murry T, Holtzman D, et al. Sociodemographic disparities in cancer screening test use: findings from the 2000 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Prev Med. 2003; 36(5): 485-491.
12. Coughlin SS, Uhler RJ, Richards TB, Wilson KM. Breast and cervical cancer screening practices among Hispanic and non-Hispanic women residing near the United States-Mexico border, 1999-2000. Fam Community Health. 2006; 29(3): 187-196.
13. Kumar HH, Tanya S. A study on knowledge and screening for cervical cancer among women in Mangalore city. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014; 4(5): 751-756.
14. Nene BM, Jayant K, Arrossi S, et al. Determinants of women's participation in cervical cancer screening trial, Maharashtra, India. Bull World Health Organ. 2007; 85(4): 264-272.
15. Akinlaja OA, Anorlu RI. Cervical cancer screening: knowledge and practice among women in a tertiary institution in Lagos. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2014; 21(2): 104-109.
16. Gizaw AT, Yifru S, Sisay MM. Cervical cancer screening service utilization and associated factors among age-eligible women in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2022; 17(1): e0261490.
17. Al Nsour M, Obeidat N, Batieha A, et al. Prevalence and predictors of cervical cancer screening among Jordanian women: results of a national population-based survey. East Mediterr Health J. 2012; 18(11): 1102-1109.
18. Akinyemiju T, McDonald JA, Lantz PM. Health care access dimensions and cervical cancer screening in South Africa: analysis of the world health survey. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16: 382.
19. Leinonen MK, Campbell S, Ursin G, et al. Barriers to cervical cancer screening faced by immigrants: a registry-based study of 1.4 million women in Norway. Eur J Public Health. 2017; 27(5): 873-879.
20. Segnan N. Socioeconomic status and cancer screening. IARC Sci Publ. 1997; 138: 369-376.
21. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2006.
22. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6(1): 1-55.
23. Daire J, Kraha A, Nagel C, et al. Examining the validity of the goodness-of-fit index for path models. Struct Equ Modeling. 2008; 15(3): 340-359.
24. Misra JS, Srivastava S, Singh U, Srivastava AN. Risk-factors and strategies for control of carcinoma cervix in India: Hospital based cytological screening experience of 35 years. Indian J Cancer. 2017; 54(4): 592-598.