Analysis shows that screening rates are low in ever-married women in Jordan, highlighting socioeconomic factors influencing access.
Purpose This study sought to investigate the prevalence and sociodemographic determinants related to breast and cervical cancer screening among ever-married women aged 15 to 49 years in Jordan. Methods This research employed secondary data from the 2023 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS), which included 12,547 ever-married women aged 15 to 49. Weighted multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to quantify screening prevalence and identify related covariates, presented as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The prevalence of screening for breast and cervical cancer was 15.2% and 16.2%, respectively. Increased screening participation was substantially correlated with advanced age, larger home affluence, higher parity, previous sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and exposure to radio communications. Women aged 35–49 were more likely to receive breast (AOR: 4.0; 95% CI: 2.6–6.0) and cervical cancer screening (AOR: 5.5; 95% CI: 3.3–9.2) compared to those aged 15–24 years. Women in the highest wealth quintile had a greater likelihood of being screened for breast cancer (AOR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.6–2.8) and cervical cancer (AOR: 2.6; 95% CI: 1.9–3.5). Moreover, breast cancer screening correlated with recent healthcare service consumption (AOR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1–1.6), while cervical cancer screening had a favorable association with elevated educational attainment (AOR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2–2.3). Living in rural areas was inversely correlated with cervical screening participation (AOR: 0.7; 95% CI: 0.6–1.0). Conclusion Screening rates for breast and cervical cancer among Jordanian women are inadequate. Interventions that facilitate equitable access—especially aimed at younger, less educated, rural, and low-income women—are crucial for enhancing participation and diminishing inequities in early cancer detection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: