| Literature DB >> 35840949 |
Geertruida H de Bock1, Jelle Stekelenburg2,3, Marat Sultanov4, Janine de Zeeuw2, Jaap Koot2, Jurjen van der Schans2,5, Jogchum J Beltman6, Marlieke de Fouw6, Marek Majdan7, Martin Rusnak7, Naheed Nazrul8, Aminur Rahman9, Carolyn Nakisige10, Arathi P Rao11, Keerthana Prasad12, Shyamala Guruvare13, Regien Biesma2, Marco Versluis14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing has been recommended by the World Health Organization as the primary screening test in cervical screening programs. The option of self-sampling for this screening method can potentially increase women's participation. Designing screening programs to implement this method among underscreened populations will require contextualized evidence.Entities:
Keywords: Bangladesh; Cervical cancer; Cervical cancer screening; Human papillomavirus testing; Implementation; India; Slovakia; Uganda
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35840949 PMCID: PMC9284962 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13488-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 4.135
Summary of country settings
| Bangladesh | India | Slovak Republic | Uganda | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population (million) [ | 164.69 | 1380 | 5.46 | 45.74 |
| GDP per capita, PPP (current international $) [ | 5136.7 | 6501.5 | 32014.6 | 2293.5 |
| Cervical cancer incidence rate (crude, per 100 000) [ | 10.2 | 18.7 | 24.9 | 30 |
| Cervical cancer incidence rate (age-standardized, per 100 000) [ | 10.6 | 18.0 | 16.6 | 56.2 |
| Cervical cancer mortality (crude, per 100 000) [ | 6.1 | 11.7 | 10.1 | 19.9 |
| Cervical cancer mortality (age-standardized, per 100 000) [ | 6.7 | 11.4 | 5.3 | 41.4 |
| Available/recommended method of screening | VIA | VIA/Pap smear | Pap smear | VIA |
| Type of screening | Opportunistic | Opportunistic | Opportunistic | Opportunistic |
| Target age group in the project (years) | 30-60 | 35-63 | 19-64 | 30-49 |
Fig. 1Screening strategy - India and Bangladesh. * - AI-DSS in study mode only, treatment decisions will be based on manual VIA ** - Implies only absence of further testing within the project, national guidelines for screening intervals apply
Fig. 2Screening strategy - Slovak Republic. * - AI-DSS in study mode only, treatment decisions will be based on manual VIA ** - Implies only absence of further testing within the project, national guidelines for screening intervals apply
Fig. 3Screening strategy - Uganda. * - AI-DSS in study mode only, treatment decisions will be based on manual VIA ** - Implies only absence of further testing within the project, national guidelines for screening intervals apply
Outcomes
| Outcome | Definition |
|---|---|
| Coverage | Proportion of women who hand in the hrHPV swab out of all women eligible for screening who belong to the target group in the research area |
| Uptake | Proportion of women who hand in the hrHPV swab out of all women who received the self-swab after having been actively approached to participate in screening |
| Adherence to follow-up | Proportion of women receiving the follow-up examination (VIA or Pap smear) out of all women identified as hrHPV positive |
Client-related factors
| Contextual influences (historic, socio-cultural, environmental, health systems, political factors) | ∙ Communication and media environment |
| ∙ Influential leaders, lobbies | |
| ∙ Historical factors | |
| ∙ Religion, culture | |
| ∙ Gender issues | |
| ∙ Politics | |
| ∙ Geographical barriers | |
| ∙ Perceptions of technology | |
| Individuals and groups | ∙ Personal and family experience with cancer |
| ∙ Beliefs and attitudes regarding screening and prevention | |
| ∙ Knowledge and awareness | |
| ∙ Trust in health system and providers | |
| ∙ Perceived benefits of early treatment | |
| ∙ Social norms in the community | |
| Specific issues related to cervical cancer screening | ∙ Attitudes towards gynecological examination |
| ∙ Attitudes towards privacy or involvement of male providers | |
| ∙ Costs (including indirect costs such as transportation) | |
| ∙ Health systems factors (waiting, returning for screening) |
Health system factors
| Service delivery | ∙ Lack of user-friendly services |
| ∙ Opportunistic screening instead of proactive screening | |
| ∙ Inadequate privacy or confidentiality | |
| Health workforce | ∙ Insufficient or lack of staff (gynecologists, trained nurses or midwives, pathologists, laboratory staff) |
| ∙ Inadequate staff capabilities | |
| ∙ High turnover of staff | |
| Monitoring and evaluation | ∙ Inadequate paper patient files and reporting |
| ∙ Lack of a reminder system for defaulting patients | |
| Access to medicines / supplies | ∙ Unavailability of hrHPV tests; |
| ∙ Supplies for cryotherapy or thermal ablation only via commercial suppliers | |
| ∙ Insufficient sterilization of equipment | |
| ∙ Lack of maintenance and repair | |
| ∙ Limited number of distributors | |
| Financing | ∙ Vertical approach toward community-based programs |
| ∙ Focus on financing curative care | |
| Governance | ∙ Lack of / insufficient implementation of guidelines |
| ∙ Lack of a functional national screening program |