IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0241961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breast self-examination practice and associated factors among female healthcare workers in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Birye Dessalegn Mekonnen

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer is common global public health problem. It is the principal cause of cancer related death. In Ethiopia, study findings regarding prevalence and associated factors of BSE among female healthcare workers have been inconsistently reported and highly variable. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of breast self-examination practice and determinants in Ethiopia. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Global Health, Google Scholar, CINAHL and Scopus from April 2, 2020 to April 24, 2020. Data were extracted from articles included in the review using a data extraction tool which was adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute. the quality of each included article was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data analysis was done using STATA 11. The Cochrane Q and I2 test were used to assess heterogeneity between the studies; and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test. A random effects meta-analysis was computed to determine the pooled prevalence of breast self-examination. The determinants for breast self-examination were examined. Forest plots were used to present the prevalence and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Results: After reviewing 9605 studies, 12 studies involving 4129 female healthcare workers were included for this review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of breast self-examination practice among healthcare workers in Ethiopia was 56.31% (95% CI: 44.37, 68.25). The subgroup analysis further revealed that the higher breast self-examination practice was observed among other healthcare workers, 58.60% (95% CI: 43.31, 73.90). Good knowledge (AOR = 3.02; 95% CI: 1.24, 7.35), positive attitude (AOR = 2.73; 95% CI: 1.95, 4.13) and family history of breast cancer (AOR = 3.21; 95% CI: 1.22, 6.52) were significantly associated with breast self-examination practice among healthcare workers. Conclusion: This meta-analysis found that nearly half of the female healthcare workers were not performed breast self-examination. The finding of this study suggests the need of strengthening early diagnosis of breast cancer and control strategies with a collaborative effort of policymakers and other concerned stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Birye Dessalegn Mekonnen, 2020. "Breast self-examination practice and associated factors among female healthcare workers in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241961
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241961
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241961&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0241961?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241961. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.