Megan J Huchko1,2, Easter Olwanda3, Yujung Choi1, James G Kahn4. 1. Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Center for Microbiology Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Institutes for Health Policy Studies and Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the efficiency of screening through high-volume community health campaigns (CHCs) by comparing the costs and population reach and identify factors associated with gains in efficiency. Access to effective cervical cancer screening remains limited in low-resource settings, especially in rural areas. Periodic CHCs are a novel method of offering screening for HPV at lower costs and higher population coverage than health facilities. METHODS: A micro-costing study was conducted within a cervical cancer screening trial to measure efficiency (cost per woman screened) and population uptake of HPV-based screening offered through CHCs in Migori County, Kenya between January and September 2016. Regression analysis assessed relationships between population size and efficiency. Structured observations and qualitative interviews identified implementation factors that affected efficiency in individual campaigns. RESULTS: Communities screening through CHCs had costs per woman screened ranging from US $22.06 to $30.21. Efficiency was directly correlated to overall numbers of women screened, but not to proportion of population screened. Modifiable factors that acted as context-specific facilitators and barriers with a potential impact on efficiency were identified. CONCLUSION: There was substantial variation in efficiency among CHCs. Cultural factors, health beliefs, and poor coordination among implementation partners as potential key barriers to screening uptake were identified.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the efficiency of screening through high-volume community health campaigns (CHCs) by comparing the costs and population reach and identify factors associated with gains in efficiency. Access to effective cervical cancer screening remains limited in low-resource settings, especially in rural areas. Periodic CHCs are a novel method of offering screening for HPV at lower costs and higher population coverage than health facilities. METHODS: A micro-costing study was conducted within a cervical cancer screening trial to measure efficiency (cost per woman screened) and population uptake of HPV-based screening offered through CHCs in Migori County, Kenya between January and September 2016. Regression analysis assessed relationships between population size and efficiency. Structured observations and qualitative interviews identified implementation factors that affected efficiency in individual campaigns. RESULTS: Communities screening through CHCs had costs per woman screened ranging from US $22.06 to $30.21. Efficiency was directly correlated to overall numbers of women screened, but not to proportion of population screened. Modifiable factors that acted as context-specific facilitators and barriers with a potential impact on efficiency were identified. CONCLUSION: There was substantial variation in efficiency among CHCs. Cultural factors, health beliefs, and poor coordination among implementation partners as potential key barriers to screening uptake were identified.
Authors: You-Lin Qiao; John W Sellors; Paul S Eder; Yan-Ping Bao; Jeanette M Lim; Fang-Hui Zhao; Bernhard Weigl; Wen-Hua Zhang; Roger B Peck; Ling Li; Feng Chen; Qing-Jing Pan; Attila T Lorincz Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sue J Goldie; Lynne Gaffikin; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Amparo Gordillo-Tobar; Carol Levin; Cédric Mahé; Thomas C Wright Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Hai-Rim Shin; Freddie Bray; David Forman; Colin Mathers; Donald Maxwell Parkin Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Heather L White; Chishimba Mulambia; Moses Sinkala; Mulindi H Mwanahamuntu; Groesbeck P Parham; Linda Moneyham; Diane M Grimley; Eric Chamot Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: C Clavel; M Masure; J P Bory; I Putaud; C Mangeonjean; M Lorenzato; R Gabriel; C Quereux; P Birembaut Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 7.640