High Rate of Loss to Follow-Up Among Patients Undergoing Treatment for Premalignant Cervical Lesions at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital, Southwestern Uganda: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
adherence
follow-up
loss
premalignant cervical lesions
southwestern uganda
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
accepted:
04
10
2023
medline:
6
11
2023
pubmed:
6
11
2023
entrez:
6
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For a cervical cancer control program to be effective in reducing the incidence of the disease, there should be high compliance to treatment and follow-up of women diagnosed with precursor lesions. Screening programs in low-resource countries such as Uganda are challenged by poor adherence to follow-up following treatment for premalignant cervical lesions. This study sought to describe the burden and factors associated with loss to follow-up among women undergoing treatment for premalignant cervical lesions at a tertiary hospital in southwestern Uganda. This was a retrospective cohort study. We reviewed the registers at the Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital (MRRH) cervical cancer clinic for a period of four years from January 2017 to December 2020. Data on age, district of residence, diagnosis, date of diagnosis, date and type of initial treatment, and date of follow-up visit were collected. We also captured data on whether patients returned on the scheduled follow-up date or within three months after the scheduled follow-up date. We defined loss to follow-up as failure to return for follow-up either on the scheduled date or within three months after the scheduled date. Out of the 298 patients who underwent treatment for premalignant cervical lesions in the study period, 227 (76.2%) did not return for follow-up at one year. At bivariate analysis, failure to attend the review visit at six weeks predicted the loss to follow-up at one year following treatment for premalignant lesions almost perfectly (risk ratio (RR)=2.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.18-3.71, p<0.001). Negative HIV serostatus and receiving thermocoagulation slightly increased the risk of getting lost to follow-up, while being more than 45 years old reduced the odds. At multivariate analysis, treatment with thermocoagulation (adjusted risk ratio (aRR)=1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.36, p=0.03) was associated with loss to follow-up at one year. The proportion of women who did not return for follow-up at one year following treatment for premalignant cervical lesions at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital is very high. There is a need to implement strategies such as telephone-aided reminders to prompt patients to return for follow-up following treatment for premalignant cervical lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
For a cervical cancer control program to be effective in reducing the incidence of the disease, there should be high compliance to treatment and follow-up of women diagnosed with precursor lesions. Screening programs in low-resource countries such as Uganda are challenged by poor adherence to follow-up following treatment for premalignant cervical lesions. This study sought to describe the burden and factors associated with loss to follow-up among women undergoing treatment for premalignant cervical lesions at a tertiary hospital in southwestern Uganda.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective cohort study. We reviewed the registers at the Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital (MRRH) cervical cancer clinic for a period of four years from January 2017 to December 2020. Data on age, district of residence, diagnosis, date of diagnosis, date and type of initial treatment, and date of follow-up visit were collected. We also captured data on whether patients returned on the scheduled follow-up date or within three months after the scheduled follow-up date. We defined loss to follow-up as failure to return for follow-up either on the scheduled date or within three months after the scheduled date.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Out of the 298 patients who underwent treatment for premalignant cervical lesions in the study period, 227 (76.2%) did not return for follow-up at one year. At bivariate analysis, failure to attend the review visit at six weeks predicted the loss to follow-up at one year following treatment for premalignant lesions almost perfectly (risk ratio (RR)=2.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.18-3.71, p<0.001). Negative HIV serostatus and receiving thermocoagulation slightly increased the risk of getting lost to follow-up, while being more than 45 years old reduced the odds. At multivariate analysis, treatment with thermocoagulation (adjusted risk ratio (aRR)=1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.36, p=0.03) was associated with loss to follow-up at one year.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The proportion of women who did not return for follow-up at one year following treatment for premalignant cervical lesions at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital is very high. There is a need to implement strategies such as telephone-aided reminders to prompt patients to return for follow-up following treatment for premalignant cervical lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37927695
doi: 10.7759/cureus.46542
pmc: PMC10625478
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e46542Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023, Kajabwangu et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Curr Probl Cancer. 2018 Mar - Apr;42(2):129-136
pubmed: 29428790
Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Aug 1;162(3):199-200
pubmed: 15987728
IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2007;90:1-636
pubmed: 18354839
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Jan;46(1):147-152
pubmed: 31595603
Int J Public Health. 2008;53(3):165-7
pubmed: 19127890
Prev Med. 1985 Mar;14(2):248-58
pubmed: 4048087
Cent Afr J Med. 2007 May-Aug;53(5-8):25-30
pubmed: 20355678
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023 Feb 15;3(2):e0000785
pubmed: 36962762
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016 Mar 25;4(1):87-98
pubmed: 27016546
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Oct;155 Suppl 1:28-44
pubmed: 34669203
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e191-e203
pubmed: 31812369
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 21;6(1):e007690
pubmed: 26801459
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Apr;30(4):434-435
pubmed: 32122949
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;60(1):56-59
pubmed: 33495009
Int J Womens Health. 2019 Apr 01;11:229-239
pubmed: 31015770
Cureus. 2022 Oct 10;14(10):e30154
pubmed: 36397919
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2017 Feb 03;20:37-40
pubmed: 28275695
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Jul;138 Suppl 1:20-25
pubmed: 28691333
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2012 Oct;16(4):345-51
pubmed: 22622340
Int J Cancer. 2004 Apr 10;109(3):418-24
pubmed: 14961581
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;(5):CD006591
pubmed: 22592714
J Natl Med Assoc. 2003 Sep;95(9):825-32
pubmed: 14527050
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 14;11(9):e049901
pubmed: 34521669
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Apr;105(1):74-80
pubmed: 17157363
BMJ. 2007 Nov 24;335(7629):1077
pubmed: 17959735
JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Oct;6:1565-1573
pubmed: 33074738