| Literature DB >> 35077465 |
Alejandra González1, Ricardo Sánchez2, Milena Camargo1,3, Sara Cecilia Soto-De León1, Luisa Del Río-Ospina1, Luis Hernando Mora4, Edwin Ramírez1, Anny Alejandra Rodríguez1, Paula Hurtado1, Manuel Elkin Patarroyo1,2,5, Manuel Alfonso Patarroyo1,2,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer (CC) promotion and prevention (P&P) programmes' challenge lies in guaranteeing that follow-up strategies have a real impact on reducing CC-related mortality rates. CC P&P programme compliance and coverage rates are relevant indicators for evaluating their success and good performance; however, such indicators' frequency rates are considerably lower among women living in rural and border areas. This study was aimed at identifying factors associated with CC screening programme attendance for women living in Colombia's Amazon region.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35077465 PMCID: PMC8789105 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262069
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Communities selected for the focus group discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rural | San Sebastian de los Lagos | 4 | Rural | Veinte de Julio | 8 | ||
| Puerto Esperanza | 13 | ||||||
| La Milagrosa | 5 | San Juan de Atacuari | 11 | ||||
| San Antonio de los Lagos | 10 | Siete de Agosto | 3 | ||||
| Naranjales | 12 | ||||||
| Isla de la Fantasía | 6 | San Pedro de Tipísca | 8 | ||||
| Urban | El Águila neighbourhood | 6 | Doce de Octubre | 8 | |||
| IANE neighbourhood | 4 | San Francisco | 5 | ||||
| Castañal neighbourhood | 4 | San Juan del Socó | 4 | ||||
| José María Hernández neighbourhood | 8 | Urban | Los Baos neighbourhood | 8 |
a Two focus groups were held in Leticia’s urban area, the first in El Águila and IANE neighbourhoods and the second in the Castañal and José María Hernández neighbourhoods.
Topics dealt with during the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions.
| Main topic | Secondary topics |
|---|---|
| Socioeconomic | The municipality’s main economic activities, settlement patterns, social organisation, expectations, wishes, needs. P&P programme users’ perception of quality of life and basic unsatisfied needs; health service providers’ extramural activities. |
| Cultural–behavioural | Cultural characterisation, the most relevant cultural practices, cultural risk factors considered most relevant, relevant historical events, migrations, potentialities, resistance and ability to adapt to change, social support networks. Personal knowledge/awareness of the municipality’s ethnic diversity. Testimonies regarding previous experience for improving women’s attendance at and compliance with P&P programmes (local strategies). Previous experience of working with an indigenous population and health P&P programmes. |
| Epidemiological | Health profile, demography, morbidity, mortality, level of knowledge regarding parts of the body, location of the cervix, knowledge concerning CC and HPV. |
| Environmental | The municipality’s geographical characteristics and those of the users attending P&P programmes, limitations regarding access, knowledge of the itinerary to access health services which users must be aware of, resources used/needed for accessing health services. |
| Political/policy-based administrative | Assurance, relationship with insurers and surveillance and control bodies, detailed description of functions, description of the health service-providing network, characterising health service usage, testimonies regarding access to CC control programmes. Description of how P&P activities are developed. Users’ degree of satisfaction with the health service provider. Personal perception of P&P programme functioning. Level of personal knowledge and perception regarding current Colombian regulations for CC control, knowledge/awareness of rights concerning healthcare. Level of knowledge and perception of the quality of screening strategies. Managing epidemiological and public health information. |
Fig 1Flowchart explaining survey design, planning and its preliminary and final versions.
Communities selected for the survey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rural | San Martin | 77 | Rural | Puerto Esperanza | 80 | ||
| Macedonia | 111 | ||||||
| Kilómetro 18 | 109 | San Francisco | 88 | ||||
| Ronda | 90 | ||||||
| Isla de la Fantasía | 98 | San Juan del Socó | 157 | ||||
| Arara | 165 | ||||||
| Urban | Nazareth | 162 | |||||
| Tauchi neighbourhood | 127 | Urban | Los Baos neighbourhood | 102 | |||
| Victoria Regia neighbourhood | 118 |
Fig 2Flowchart explaining the design and the women included in the study.
Sociodemographic description of the study population.
| Demographic | Total non- attendance | Partial attendance | Attendance and compliance | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
|
| 40.3 [18–67] | 37.3 [18–69] | 36.1 [19–68] |
|
| SD = 12.6 | SD = 10.5 | SD = 12.5 |
| |
|
| 16.7 [13–23] | 15.9 [11–27] | 17.1 [13–23] |
|
| SD = 2.4 | SD = 2.3 | SD = 2.3 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
| Urban | 33 (55.0) | 68 (33.7) | 19 (40.4) |
|
| Rural | 27 (45.0) | 134 (66.3) | 28 (59.6) |
|
|
| ||||
| None | 8 (13.3) | 15 (7.4) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| Primary/secondary | 41 (68.3) | 170 (84.2) | 39 (82.9) |
|
| Technical/professional | 11 (18.3) | 17 (8.4) | 8 (17.0) |
|
|
| ||||
| Housewife | 21 (35.0) | 86 (42.6) | 14 (29.8) |
|
| Agriculture/small farm/plot worker | 16 (26.7) | 61 (30.2) | 15 (31.9) |
|
| Businesswoman | 4 (6.7) | 12 (5.9) | 3 (6.4) |
|
| Other | 19 (31.7) | 43 (21.3) | 15 (31.9) |
|
|
| ||||
| Ticuna indigenous | 29 (48.3) | 125 (61.9) | 26 (55.3) |
|
| Mestizo | 22 (36.7) | 39 (19.3) | 17 (36.2) |
|
| Other indigenous group | 9 (15.0) | 36 (17.8) | 4 (8.5) |
|
| Afro descendent | 0-- | 1 (0.5) | 1 (2.1) |
|
|
| ||||
| None | 18 (30.0) | 86 (42.6) | 15 (31.9) |
|
| Hormonal | 17 (28.3) | 61 (30.2) | 15 (31.9) |
|
| Tubal ligation | 13 (21.7) | 35 (17.3) | 9 (19.1) |
|
| Other method | 12 (20.0) | 19 (9.4) | 9 (19.1) |
|
|
| ||||
| None | 2 (3.3) | 2 (1.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 1–2 | 17 (28.3) | 42 (20.8) | 23 (48.9) |
|
| ≥3 | 41 (68.3) | 157 (77.7) | 25 (53.2) |
|
|
| ||||
| No | 50 (83.3) | 148 (73.3) | 35 (74.5) |
|
| Yes | 10 (16.7) | 53 (26.2) | 13 (27.7) |
|
|
| ||||
| 1 | 38 (63.3) | 108 (53.5) | 25 (53.2) |
|
| 2–3 | 13 (21.7) | 40 (19.8) | 14 (29.8) |
|
| >3 | 9 (15.0) | 54 (26.7) | 8 (17.0) |
|
|
| ||||
| No | 49 (81.7) | 184 (91.1) | 45 (95.7) |
|
| Yes | 11 (18.3) | 18 (8.9) | 2 (4.3) |
|
|
| ||||
| Never | 44 (73.3) | 150 (74.3) | 25 (53.2) |
|
| Occasionally | 9 (15.0) | 35 (17.3) | 15 (31.9) |
|
| Always | 7 (11.7) | 17 (8.4) | 7 (14.9) |
|
|
| ||||
| No | 0 -- | 175 (86.6) | 44 (93.6) |
|
| Yes | 0 -- | 27 (13.4) | 3 (6.4) |
|
a Other indigenous group included Uitoto, Yaguas and Cocamas.
b Other method included medicinal plants and natural contraceptives.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of socioeconomic and demographic factors and risk factors associated with attendance and compliance (n = 309 women).
| Demographics | Total non- attendance | Attendance at least once | Attendance and compliance | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | ||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Urban | 33 (55.0) | 68 (33.7) | 19 (40.4) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Rural | 27 (45.0) | 134 (66.3) | 28 (59.6) | 0.63 | 0.33–1.41 | 0.065 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| None | 8 (13.3) | 15 (7.4) | 0 (0.0) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Primary | 20 (33.3) | 105 (52.0) | 12 (25.5) | 2.58 | 0.77–6.51 | 0.134 | 1.44 | 0.47–4.37 | 0.510 |
| Secondary | 21 (35.0) | 65 (32.2) | 27 (57.4) |
|
|
| 1.81 | 0.56–5.82 | 0.313 |
| Technical/professional | 11 (18.3) | 17 (8.4) | 8 (17.0) |
|
|
| 0.94 | 0.23–3.84 | 0.933 |
|
| |||||||||
| <15 | 18 (30.0) | 86 (42.6) | 15 (31.9) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 16–20 | 17 (28.3) | 61 (30.2) | 15 (31.9) | 1.21 | 0.73–2.01 | 0.155 | 1.19 | 0.99–2.02 | 0.050 |
| ≥21 | 13 (21.7) | 35 (17.3) | 9 (19.1) | 2.81 | 0.82–9.06 | 0.098 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| 1 | 38 (63.3) | 108 (53.5) | 25 (53.2) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 2–3 | 13 (21.7) | 40 (19.8) | 14 (29.8) | 1.50 | 0.82–2.75 | 0.184 | 1.58 | 0.80–3.11 | 0.183 |
| >3 | 9 (15.0) | 54 (26.7) | 8 (17.0) | 1.26 | 0.71–2.24 | 0.111 | 1.42 | 0.71–2.84 | 0.317 |
|
| |||||||||
| No | 50 (83.3) | 148 (73.3) | 35 (74.5) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 10 (16.7) | 54 (26.7) | 12 (25.5) | 1.47 | 0.86–2.52 | 0.158 | 1.69 | 0.92–3.13 | 0.090 |
|
| |||||||||
| Never | 44 (73.3) | 150 (74.3) | 25 (53.2) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Occasionally | 9 (15.0) | 35 (17.3) | 15 (31.9) | 1.59 | 0.69–3.68 | 0.272 | 1.80 | 0.99–3.74 | 0.050 |
| Always | 7 (11.7) | 17 (8.4) | 7 (14.9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| No | 49 (81.7) | 184 (91.1) | 45 (95.7) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 11 (18.3) | 18 (8.9) | 2 (4.3) |
|
|
| 0.87 | 0.90–2.94 | 0.065 |
a Estimates of logistic regression were adjusted (adjusted OR) for location of dwelling, educational level, age at first intercourse, lifetime amount of sexual partners, abortions, condom use and current smoking status.
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of accessibility, perceived P&P programme quality and awareness of CC prevention mechanism associated with P&P programme attendance and compliance (n = 309 women).
| Demographic | Total non- attendance | Attendance at least once | Attendance and compliance | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | ||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Less than 1 year | 13 (44.8) | 56 (41.2) | 8 (28.6) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| More than 1 year | 6 (20.7) | 26 (19.1) | 6 (21.4) | 1.29 | 0.55–3.00 | 0.152 | 0.93 | 0.26–3.33 | 0.922 |
| Never | 10 (34.5) | 54 (39.7) | 14 (50.0) | 1.58 | 0.80–3.15 | 0.185 | 1.01 | 0.39–2.58 | 0.973 |
|
| |||||||||
| Less than 30 minutes | 30 (50.0) | 65 (32.2) | 17 (36.2) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 30–60 minutes | 10 (16.7) | 57 (28.2) | 12 (25.5) | 0.90 | 0.55–1.47 | 0.690 | 3.79 | 0.60–9.63 | 0.153 |
| More than 60 minutes | 20 (33.3) | 80 (39.6) | 18 (38.3) | 0.99 | 0.44–2.21 | 0.981 | 1.82 | 0.28–8.65 | 0.523 |
|
| |||||||||
| No | 55 (91.7) | 169 (83.7) | 38 (80.9) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 5 (8.3) | 33 (16.3) | 9 (19.1) | 1.68 | 0.89–3.17 | 0.107 | 1.01 | 0.29–3.52 | 0.986 |
|
| |||||||||
| 1 to 15 days | 0 -- | 53 (29.6) | 17 (36.2) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 16 to 30 days | 0 -- | 79 (44.1) | 18 (38.3) |
|
|
| 0.66 | 0.27–1.58 | 0.354 |
| More than 30 days | 0 -- | 47 (26.3) | 12 (25.5) | 0.63 | 0.32–1.22 | 0.175 | 0.54 | 0.19–1.53 | 0.248 |
|
| |||||||||
| No | 19 (31.7) | 69 (34.2) | 7 (14.9) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 41 (68.3) | 133 (65.8) | 40 (85.1) | 0.99 | 0.36–2.45 | 0.106 | 0.73 | 0.29–1.82 | 0.507 |
|
| |||||||||
| No | 32 (53.3) | 136 67.3() | 20 (42.6) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 28 (46.7) | 66 (32.7) | 27 (57.4) | 1.20 | 0.74–1.93 | 0.145 | 1.84 | 0.69–4.89 | 0.219 |
|
| |||||||||
| No | 0 -- | 7 (3.5) | 5 (10.6) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 60 (100) | 195 (96.5) | 42 (89.4) | 0.17 | 0.01–1.57 | 0.344 | 0.29 | 0.10–2.51 | 0.263 |
|
| |||||||||
| No | 19 (31.7) | 74 (36.6) | 7 (14.9) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 41 (68.3) | 128 (63.4) | 40 (85.1) | 1.43 | 0.98–2.35 | 0.540 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| No | 35 (58.3) | 104 (51.5) | 12 (25.5) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 25 (41.7) | 98 (48.5) | 35 (74.5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| No | 30 (50.0) | 65 (32.2) | 8 (17.0) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 30 (50.0) | 137 (67.8) | 39 (83.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a Estimates of logistic regression were adjusted (adjusted OR) for location of dwelling, last P&P session held in the community, time to reach P&P service, access, whether the healthcentre had personnel who could speak an indigenous language, how long it took to receive cytology results, is cytology important/useful and knowledge regarding CC, cytology examination, HPV and CC diagnosis methods.
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval, P&P, promotion and prevention; CC, cervical cancer; Cvx, cervix; HPV, human papillomavirus.