| Literature DB >> 24678898 |
Oliver Chukwujekwu Ezechi1, Karen Odberg Petterson, Titilola A Gbajabiamila, Ifeoma Eugenia Idigbe, Olutunmike Kuyoro, Innocent Achaya Otobo Ujah, Per Olof Ostergren.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasingly evidence is emerging from south East Asia, southern and east Africa on the burden of default to follow up care after a positive cervical cancer screening/diagnosis, which impacts negatively on cervical cancer prevention and control. Unfortunately little or no information exists on the subject in the West Africa sub region. This study was designed to determine the proportion of and predictors and reasons for default from follow up care after positive cervical cancer screen.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24678898 PMCID: PMC3986612 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Figure 1Study participation and follow up status.
Socio-demographic and reproductive characteristics of the 108 women who screened positive to direct visual inspection
| | |
| 18 -20 | 1(0.9) |
| 20-29 | 16(15.0) |
| 30-39 | 28(26.2) |
| 40-49 | 43(40.2) |
| ≥ 50 | 19(17.8) |
| | |
| 0 | 9(8.9) |
| 1-4 | 79(78.2) |
| ≥ 5 | 13(12.9) |
| | |
| None | 10(9.3) |
| Primary | 19(17.8) |
| Secondary | 38(35.5) |
| Tertiary | 40(37.4) |
| | |
| Unemployed | 29(27.4) |
| Unskilled | 32(30.2) |
| Skilled | 35(33.0) |
| Business executive/Professional | 11(10.4) |
| | |
| Single | 14(13.1) |
| Married | 77(72.0) |
| Divorced/Separated | 4(3.7) |
| Widowed | 9(8.4) |
| | |
| Urban | 34(31.5) |
| Rural | 74(68.5) |
| | |
| <5 | 14(13.0) |
| 5-10 | 22(20.4) |
| 11-20 | 31(28.7) |
| 21-50 | 28(25.9) |
| ≥50 | 13(12.0) |
| | |
| Using | 32(29.6) |
| Not using | 76(70.4) |
| | |
| Screened | 22(20.4) |
| Not screened | 86(79.6) |
| | |
| Positive | 7(6.5) |
| Negative | 101(93.5) |
Association between default from follow-up care after screening positive to precancerous lesion of the cervix and sociodemographic and reproductive characteristics of the participants (n = 108)
| | | | | | | |
| <40 | 25(49.0) | 20(35.1) | 1.8(0.8 – 4.2) | 0.20 | 1.2(0.8 – 6.9) | 0.23 |
| ≥40 | 26(51.0) | 37(64.9) | 1(ref) | 1(ref) | ||
| | | | | | | |
| ≤2 | 15(29.4) | 18(31.6) | 2.0(0.8 – 5.6) | 0.88 | 1.1(0.5 – 8.1) | 0.95 |
| >2 | 3(70.6) | 35(68.4) | 1(ref) | 1(ref) | ||
| | | | | | | |
| < Secondary | 19(37.5) | 10(17.5) | 2.9(1.1 – 7.7) | 0.03 | 3.1(2.0 – 5.2)a | 0.02 |
| ≥ Secondary | 31(62.7) | 47(82.5) | 1(ref) | 1(ref) | ||
| | | | | | | |
| Not married | 14(27.5) | 9(15.8) | 2.0(0.7 – 5.6) | 0.23 | 1.3(0.8 – 6.9) | 0.26 |
| Married | 37(72.5) | 47(84.2) | 1(ref) | 1(ref) | ||
| | | | | | | |
| Not working | 27(52.9) | 19(33.3) | 2.3(1.0 – 5.4) | 0.06 | 1.2(0.8 – 8.1) | 0.11 |
| Working | 23(47.1) | 37(66.7) | 1(ref) | 1(ref) | ||
| | | | | | | |
| Urban | 10(19.6) | 23(40.4) | 1(ref) | 0.03 | 1(ref) | 0.07 |
| Rural | 41(80.4) | 34(59.6) | 2.8(1.1 – 7.3) | 1.6(0.9 –9.1) | ||
| | | | | | | |
| < 10 Km | 11(21.6) | 25(43.9) | 1(ref) | 0.02 | 1(ref) | 0.03 |
| ≥ 10 Km | 40(78.4) | 32(56.1) | 2.8(1.1 – 7.3) | 2.0(1.0 –4.1)b | ||
| | | | | | | |
| Using | 10(19.6) | 22(38.6) | 1(ref) | 0.05 | 1(ref) | 0.08 |
| Not using | 41(80.4) | 35(61.4) | 2.6(1.0 -6.8) | 1.4(0.3 – 9.7) | ||
| | | | | | | |
| Screened | 5(9.8) | 17(29.8) | 1(ref) | 0.02 | 1(ref) | |
| Never Screened | 46(90.2) | 40(70.2) | 3.9(1.2 –13.4) | 3.5(3.1 – 8.4)c | 0.006 | |
| | | | | | ||
| Positive | 3(5.9) | 4(7.0) | 0.8(0.1-4.7) | 0.66 | 0.8(0.2-5.1) | 0.81 |
| Negative | 48(94.1) | 53(93.0) | 1(ref) | 1(ref) | ||
Note: Potential confounders adjusted at multivariate logistic regression analysis. aAdjusted for work status, bAdjusted for type of community and work status, cAdjusted for educational status and current contraceptive use.