| Literature DB >> 34195330 |
Charles Nkurunziza1, Rahel Ghebre1,2, Urania Magriples1,3, Diomede Ntasumbumuyange1, Lisa Bazzett-Matabele1,3,4.
Abstract
Our objective was to assess the health facility related factors that cause delays in cervical cancer diagnosis at a primary healthcare level in Rwanda. Healthcare providers in outpatient clinics at 10 health centers in Kigali city and the Eastern province of Rwanda were surveyed. Eighty-five healthcare providers participated; 83.5% were nurses and the remainder were midwives. Only 15 (17.6%) reported prior training on visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) cervical cancer screening, and they were distributed among 6 of the 10 health centers surveyed. However, 76.5% of respondents reported that at least one person was trained in VIA at their health center. The basic equipment necessary for cervical cancer evaluation was reported to be generally available. Overall, only 31.8% of participants had good basic knowledge level on cervical cancer screening. No association was found between respondents' knowledge about cervical cancer screening and profession, education level, work experience or reported prior training on VIA. There is a gap in the number of primary healthcare providers with the skills to perform pelvic exam and VIA cervical cancer screening at health centers in Rwanda. As health centers are the first point of contact for patients with the healthcare system, there is a need to improve their knowledge and skills in performing cervical cancer screening and detection.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; DNA, Deoxyribonucleic acid; Early detection; Global health; HC, Health Center; HPV, Human papilloma virus; Primary healthcare; Rwanda; VIA, Visual Inspection with Acetic acid; WHO, World Health Organization
Year: 2021 PMID: 34195330 PMCID: PMC8239804 DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2021.100810
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep ISSN: 2352-5789
Demographics of respondents (n = 85).
| Frequency | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Profession | Nurse | 71 | 83.5 |
| Midwife | 14 | 16.5 | |
| Education level | A2 | 30 | 35.3 |
| A1 | 51 | 60.0 | |
| A0 | 4 | 4.7 | |
| Work experience | 0–2 years | 16 | 18.8 |
| 3–5 years | 18 | 21.2 | |
| 6–10 years | 17 | 20.0 | |
| greater than 10 years | 34 | 40.0 | |
| Trained in VIA cervical cancer screening | No | 70 | 82.4 |
| Yes | 15 | 17.6 | |
A0 = Bachelor, A1 = Advanced diploma, A2 = Enrolled nurse.
Fig. 1Availability of staff trained on VIA cervical cancer screening (N = 85).
Fig. 2Staff personally trained on VIA cervical cancer screening (N = 85).
Fig. 3Availability of facilities (N = 85).
Bivariate analysis: Respondents' characteristics and good knowledge level.
| Good knowledge level | No | Yes | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | ||||
| Profession | Nurse (n = 71) | 50(70.4%) | 21 (29.6%) | 0.329 |
| Midwife (n = 14) | 8 (57.1%) | 6 (42.9%) | ||
| Education level | A2 (n = 30) | 20 (66.7%) | 10 (33.3%) | 0.941 |
| A1(n = 51) | 35 (68.6%) | 16 (31.4%) | ||
| A0 (n = 4) | 3 (75.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | ||
| Work experience | 0–2 years (n = 16) | 13 (81.2%) | 3 (18.8%) | 0.187 |
| 3–5 years (n = 18) | 10 (55.6%) | 8 (44.4%) | ||
| 6–10 years (n = 17) | 14 (82.4%) | 3 (17.6%) | ||
| >10 years (n = 34) | 21 (61.8%) | 13 (38.2%) | ||
| VIA training | No (n = 70) | 46 (65.7%) | 24 (34.3%) | 0.281 |
| Yes (n = 15) | 12 (80.0%) | 3 (20.0%) | ||
A0 = Bachelor, A1 = Advanced diploma, A2 = Enrolled nurse.