Descriptive survey investigates cervical cancer knowledge and attitudes in female university staff, suggesting education needs.
Background: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of death among women in sub-Saharan Africa, including Nigeria. Evidence on prevention- and screening-related antecedent behaviors among female university staff remains limited. This study investigated the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes toward cervical cancer among female staff at Bowen University, Iwo, Osun State, Nigeria. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional survey was conducted with 408 consenting female staff members recruited through total sampling. Data were collected using a structured, self-administered questionnaire that assessed sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge (10-point scale), perceptions (10-point scale), and attitudes (20-point scale). Knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes were dichotomized at the 50th percentile. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and Fisher’s Exact tests were employed at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Results: The mean age of participants was 41.2 ± 9.3 years. The majority (83.8%) were married, and 74.0% were non-teaching staff. Overall, 58.8% had good knowledge, with single staff being significantly more knowledgeable than married staff members ( p < 0.05). Most respondents (59.1%) had supportive perceptions. Positive attitudes were exhibited by 52.0%, and this positive attitude was more common among academic staff than among nonacademic staff (64.2% vs. 47.7%; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Female staff members demonstrated good knowledge, supportive perceptions, and positive attitudes toward cervical cancer prevention and screening. However, gaps remain among specific subgroups, highlighting the need for targeted health education, improved access to screening services, and institutionalized routine cervical cancer screening for female university staff.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ogunwale et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: