Correction: Cancer screening behaviors and health literacy levels of women aged 30 and over in the northwest Turkey

There were some data errors introduced during the typesetting and transcription of the original article [1]. The authors regret any confusion these inaccuracies may have caused to readers and the editorial team, and corrections have been made as follows:

In the Results section (third paragraph, line 6), the number of women aged 40 and above who had never undergone a mammogram was incorrectly stated as n = 144 (77.7%). The correct number is n = 143.

In the Results section (third paragraph, line 8) and in Table 1 (under the 50–69 age fecal occult blood test row), the number of women who had never undergone fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) was incorrectly stated as n = 107. The correct number is n = 77 (71.3%).

In Table 1 (Age category row), the age group distribution was incorrectly reported as 30–49 years: 65.1% (n = 196) and 50–69 years: 34.9% (n = 105). The corrected values are 30–49 years: 64.2% (n = 193) and 50–69 years: 35.8% (n = 108).

In Table 2, in the Pap smear (30 age up) column, the p-value for THL was incorrectly reported as 0.047. The corrected p-value is 0.157 (OR remains 0.585, 95% CI: 0.279–1.230). In the same column, the odds ratio for BSE was incorrectly reported as 1.117 (95% CI: 0.398–3.140). The corrected OR is 0.895 (95% CI: 0.318–2.515).

In Table 2, in the Pap smear (30 age up) column, the odds ratio (OR) for the association between clinical breast examination (CBE) performed by a physician and pap-smear screening participation was incorrectly reported as 1.139 (95% CI: 1.074–1.965). The corrected OR is 7.205 (95% CI: 3.820–13.590). In the Abstract, the corresponding odds ratio should also be 7.205 (95% CI: 3.820–13.590). Furthermore, the Results section (paragraph 8, line 6) should remove the inaccurate reference to health literacy and cervical cancer screening; it should read: “Women with sufficient health literacy were more likely to participate in breast cancer (mammography) screening.”

The corresponding values have been corrected in Tables 1 and 2, as follows:

Although some numerical values and statistical significance in specific models have been corrected, these changes do not affect the scientific conclusions or interpretations presented in the original publication.

The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.