| Literature DB >> 34187465 |
Dhokotera Tafadzwa1,2,3, Riou Julien1, Bartels Lina1, Rohner Eliane1, Chammartin Frederique1, Johnson Leigh4, Singh Elvira2,5, Olago Victor2,5, Sengayi-Muchengeti Mazvita2,5, Egger Matthias1,4,6, Bohlius Julia1, Konstantinoudis Garyfallos7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disparities in invasive cervical cancer (ICC) incidence exist globally, particularly in HIV positive women who are at elevated risk compared to HIV negative women. We aimed to determine the spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal incidence of ICC and the potential risk factors among HIV positive women in South Africa.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34187465 PMCID: PMC8244168 DOI: 10.1186/s12942-021-00283-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Fig. 1Flow of selection of eligible cervical cancer cases
Fig. 2Maps of the deciles of the deprivation rank and number of health facilities per municipality
Fig. 3Yearly age-standardised incidence rate per 100,000 person years for women living with HIV in South Africa
Fig. 4Median posterior of spatial relative risk (exponential of the spatial random effect) and posterior probability. The posterior probability that relative risk is larger than 1 of cervical cancer compared to the national average during 2004–2014 for the model without any correction and covariates (top panels) and the fully adjusted model without any correction (bottom panels)
Fig. 5Posterior probability that the spatiotemporal relative risk (relative to the national average over time and space) of cervical cancers among women living with HIV in South Africa is higher than 1. This figure is based on the model without any covariates and corrections
Median posterior relative rate and 95% credibility intervals of the effect of the covariates
| Univariable models | Mutlivariable model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-variates | Median | 95% CrI | Pr(RR > 1) | Median | 95% CrI | Pr(RR > 1) | |
| Urbanicity | Rural | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
| Urban | 1.19 | (0.94, 1.50) | 0.92 | 0.85 | (0.65, 1.12) | 0.12 | |
| Deprivation rank | 1st Decile | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
| 2nd Decile | 1.81 | (1.16, 2.82) | 1.00 | 1.77 | (1.13, 2.78) | 0.99 | |
| 3rd Decile | 1.84 | (1.19, 2.86) | 1.00 | 1.68 | (1.07, 2.66) | 0.99 | |
| 4th Decile | 2.14 | (1.35, 3.40) | 1.00 | 1.97 | (1.23, 3.16) | 1.00 | |
| 5th Decile | 1.76 | (1.09, 2.83) | 0.99 | 1.83 | (1.10, 3.04) | 0.99 | |
| 6th Decile | 2.22 | (1.41, 3.49) | 1.00 | 1.97 | (1.23, 3.17) | 1.00 | |
| 7th Decile | 2.40 | (1.50, 3.85) | 1.00 | 2.33 | (1.43, 3.79) | 1.00 | |
| 8th Decile | 2.82 | (1.78, 4.50) | 1.00 | 2.69 | (1.66, 4.35) | 1.00 | |
| 9th Decile | 3.21 | (1.98, 5.21) | 1.00 | 2.88 | (1.75, 4.74) | 1.00 | |
| 10th Decile | 3.56 | (2.16, 5.89) | 1.00 | 3.18 | (1.82, 5.57) | 1.00 | |
| Number of health facilities | 1st Decile | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
| 2nd Decile | 1.16 | (0.68, 1.98) | 0.71 | 1.14 | (0.67, 1.92) | 0.69 | |
| 3rd Decile | 0.97 | (0.66, 1.42) | 0.43 | 0.90 | (0.62, 1.31) | 0.29 | |
| 4th Decile | 1.14 | (0.77, 1.68) | 0.74 | 1.04 | (0.71, 1.55) | 0.59 | |
| 5th Decile | 1.24 | (0.86, 1.81) | 0.87 | 1.06 | (0.73, 1.54) | 0.61 | |
| 6th Decile | 1.17 | (0.79, 1.74) | 0.78 | 1.07 | (0.72, 1.60) | 0.64 | |
| 7th Decile | 1.15 | (0.80, 1.67) | 0.77 | 1.05 | (0.72, 1.56) | 0.61 | |
| 8th Decile | 1.31 | (0.91, 1.89) | 0.93 | 1.18 | (0.81, 1.71) | 0.81 | |
| 9th Decile | 1.35 | (0.93, 1.97) | 0.95 | 1.24 | (0.85, 1.83) | 0.87 | |
| 10th Decile | 1.83 | (1.27, 2.64) | 1.00 | 1.52 | (1.03, 2.27) | 0.98 | |
CrI, Credibility intervals; Pr(RR > 1), Posterior probability that the relative rate is larger than 1. The models were adjusted for urbanicity, deprivation rank and number of health facilities as a proxy for access to health