Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives.
Humans
Female
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Early Detection of Cancer
/ psychology
Adult
Qualitative Research
Middle Aged
Uganda
Retention in Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Health Services Accessibility
/ statistics & numerical data
Health Personnel
/ psychology
Attitude of Health Personnel
Social Support
Male
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ psychology
Barriers
Cancer
Cervix
Facilitators
Loss to follow-up
Retention in care
Screening
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Sep 2024
14 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
08
11
2023
accepted:
28
08
2024
medline:
14
9
2024
pubmed:
14
9
2024
entrez:
13
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cervical cancer continues to threaten women's health, especially in low-resource settings. Regular follow-up after screening and treatment is an effective strategy for monitoring treatment outcomes. Consequently, understanding the factors contributing to patient non-attendance of scheduled follow-up visits is vital to providing high-quality care, reducing morbidity and mortality, and unnecessary healthcare costs in low-resource settings. A descriptive qualitative study was done among healthcare providers and patients who attended the cervical cancer screening clinic at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in southwestern Uganda. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed in line with the social-ecological model to identify barriers and facilitators. We conducted 23 in-depth interviews with 5 healthcare providers and 18 patients. Health system barriers included long waiting time at the facility, long turnaround time for laboratory results, congestion and lack of privacy affecting counselling, and healthcare provider training gaps. The most important interpersonal barrier among married women was lacking support from male partners. Individual-level barriers were lack of money for transport, fear of painful procedures, emotional distress, and illiteracy. Inadequate and inaccurate information was a cross-cutting barrier across the individual, interpersonal, and community levels of the socio-ecological model. The facilitators were social support, positive self-perception, and patient counselling. Our study revealed barriers to retention in care after cervical cancer screening, including lack of partner support, financial and educational constraints, and inadequate information. It also found facilitators that included social support, positive self-perception, and effective counselling.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer continues to threaten women's health, especially in low-resource settings. Regular follow-up after screening and treatment is an effective strategy for monitoring treatment outcomes. Consequently, understanding the factors contributing to patient non-attendance of scheduled follow-up visits is vital to providing high-quality care, reducing morbidity and mortality, and unnecessary healthcare costs in low-resource settings.
METHODS
METHODS
A descriptive qualitative study was done among healthcare providers and patients who attended the cervical cancer screening clinic at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in southwestern Uganda. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed in line with the social-ecological model to identify barriers and facilitators.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We conducted 23 in-depth interviews with 5 healthcare providers and 18 patients. Health system barriers included long waiting time at the facility, long turnaround time for laboratory results, congestion and lack of privacy affecting counselling, and healthcare provider training gaps. The most important interpersonal barrier among married women was lacking support from male partners. Individual-level barriers were lack of money for transport, fear of painful procedures, emotional distress, and illiteracy. Inadequate and inaccurate information was a cross-cutting barrier across the individual, interpersonal, and community levels of the socio-ecological model. The facilitators were social support, positive self-perception, and patient counselling.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study revealed barriers to retention in care after cervical cancer screening, including lack of partner support, financial and educational constraints, and inadequate information. It also found facilitators that included social support, positive self-perception, and effective counselling.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39272088
doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-03343-1
pii: 10.1186/s12905-024-03343-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
516Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Cancer, et al. J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.
Canfell K, Kim JJ, Brisson M, Keane A, Simms KT, Caruana M, et al. Mortality impact of achieving WHO cervical cancer elimination targets: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):591–603.
pubmed: 32007142
pmcid: 7043006
Bruni L, Albero G, Serrano B, Mena M, Collado JJ, Gómez D et al. Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases in Uganda [Internet]. ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre); 2023 Mar [cited 2023 Jul 12]. https://hpvcentre.net/statistics/reports/UGA.pdf
Shrestha AD, Neupane D, Vedsted P, Kallestrup P. Cervical Cancer prevalence, incidence and mortality in Low and Middle Income countries: a systematic review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018;19(2):319–24.
pubmed: 29479954
pmcid: 5980914
Hull R, Mbele M, Makhafola T, Hicks C, Wang S, Reis R, et al. Cervical cancer in low and middle–income countries (review). Oncol Lett. 2020;20(3):2058–74.
pubmed: 32782524
pmcid: 7400218
World Health Organization. WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention. Second edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
Joseph NT, Namuli A, Kakuhikire B, Baguma C, Juliet M, Ayebare P, et al. Implementing community-based human papillomavirus self-sampling with SMS text follow-up for cervical cancer screening in rural, southwestern Uganda. J Glob Health. 2021;11:04036.
pubmed: 35003710
pmcid: 8709902
Sankaranarayanan R. Screening for Cancer in low- and Middle-Income Countries. Annals Global Health. 2014;80(5):412.
Nakisige C, Schwartz M, Ndira AO. Cervical cancer screening and treatment in Uganda. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2017;20:37–40.
pubmed: 28275695
pmcid: 5331149
Ministry of Health. The national cervical cancer prevention and control strategic plan, 2018–2023. [Internet]. Kampala: Ministry of Health, Uganda; 2018 [cited 2023 Jul 20]. https://platform.who.int/docs/default-source/mca-documents/policy-documents/plan-strategy/UGA-RH-47-01-PLAN-STRATEGY-2018-eng-Strategic-PlanII-2018-2023-Uganda.pdf
Nakisige C, Trawin J, Mitchell-Foster S, Payne BA, Rawat A, Mithani N, et al. Integrated cervical cancer screening in Mayuge District Uganda (ASPIRE Mayuge): a pragmatic sequential cluster randomized trial protocol. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):142.
pubmed: 32005202
pmcid: 6995074
World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014107
Higa DH, Marks G, Crepaz N, Liau A, Lyles CM. Interventions to improve retention in HIV primary care: a systematic review of U.S. studies. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2012;9(4):313–25.
pubmed: 22996171
pmcid: 6719314
Kajabwangu R, Ssedyabane F, Tusubira D, Maling S, Kakongi N, Turyakira E, et al. 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. Cureus. 2023;15(10):e46542.
pubmed: 37927695
pmcid: 10625478
Gakidou E, Nordhagen S, Obermeyer Z. Coverage of Cervical Cancer Screening in 57 countries: low average levels and large inequalities. PLoS Med. 2008;5(6):e132.
pubmed: 18563963
pmcid: 2429949
Bruni L, Serrano B, Roura E, Alemany L, Cowan M, Herrero R, et al. Cervical cancer screening programmes and age-specific coverage estimates for 202 countries and territories worldwide: a review and synthetic analysis. Lancet Global Health. 2022;10(8):e1115–27.
pubmed: 35839811
Giannini A, Di Donato V, Sopracordevole F, Ciavattini A, Ghelardi A, Vizza E, et al. Outcomes of high-Grade cervical dysplasia with positive margins and HPV persistence after cervical conization. Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11(3):698.
pubmed: 36992282
Bogani G, Sopracordevole F, Ciavattini A, Vizza E, Vercellini P, Giannini A, et al. Duration of human papillomavirus persistence and its relationship with recurrent cervical dysplasia. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2023;32(6):525–32.
pubmed: 37401466
Monti M, D’Aniello D, Scopelliti A, Tibaldi V, Santangelo G, Colagiovanni V, et al. Relationship between cervical excisional treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and obstetrical outcome. Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2021;73(2):233–46.
pubmed: 33140628
Bogani G, Sopracordevole F, Ciavattini A, Vizza E, Vercellini P, Ghezzi F, et al. HPV persistence after cervical surgical excision of high-grade cervical lesions. Cancer Cytopathol. 2024;132(5):268–9.
pubmed: 37747763
Huguet N, Kaufmann J, O’Malley J, Angier H, Hoopes M, DeVoe JE, et al. Using Electronic Health Records in Longitudinal studies: estimating patient attrition. Med Care. 2020;58(6 Suppl 1):S46–52.
pubmed: 32412953
pmcid: 7365658
Fleury MJ, Ngui AN, Bamvita JM, Grenier G, Caron J. Predictors of healthcare service utilization for mental health reasons. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(10):10559–86.
pubmed: 25321874
pmcid: 4210995
Bensemmane S, Loayza Villarroel K, Montaño K, Louati E, Ascarrunz C, Rodriguez P, et al. Assessing barriers encountered by women in Cervical Cancer Screening and Follow-Up care in Urban Bolivia, Cochabamba. Healthc (Basel). 2022;10(9):1604.
Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201–16.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An Ecological Perspective on Health Promotion Programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351–77.
pubmed: 3068205
Perkins RB, Guido RL, Saraiya M, Sawaya GF, Wentzensen N, Schiffman M, et al. Summary of current guidelines for cervical Cancer screening and management of abnormal test results: 2016–2020. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2021;30(1):5–13.
pubmed: 33464997
Nolan J, Renderos TB, Hynson J, Dai X, Chow W, Christie A, et al. Barriers to cervical cancer screening and follow-up care among Black women in Massachusetts. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2014;43(5):580–8.
pubmed: 25139164
Devarapalli P, Labani S, Nagarjuna N, Panchal P, Asthana S. Barriers affecting uptake of cervical cancer screening in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Indian J Cancer. 2018;55(4):318–26.
pubmed: 30829264
Eggleston KS, Coker AL, Das IP, Cordray ST, Luchok KJ. Understanding barriers for adherence to Follow-Up care for abnormal pap tests. J Women’s Health. 2007;16(3):311–30.
Morse RM, Jurczuk M, Brown J, Jara LEC, Meza G, López EJR, et al. Day or night, no matter what, I will go: women’s perspectives on challenges with follow-up care after cervical cancer screening in Iquitos, Peru: a qualitative study. BMC Women’s Health. 2023;23(1):293.
pubmed: 37259075
pmcid: 10234072
Chapola J, Lee F, Bula A, Mapanje C, Phiri BR, Kamtuwange N, et al. Barriers to follow-up after an abnormal cervical cancer screening result and the role of male partners: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e049901.
pubmed: 34521669
pmcid: 8442050
Habinshuti P, Hagenimana M, Nguyen C, Park PH, Mpunga T, Shulman LN, et al. Factors Associated with loss to follow-up among cervical Cancer patients in Rwanda. Ann Glob Health. 2020;86(1):117.
pubmed: 32983913
pmcid: 7500245
Bateman LB, Blakemore S, Koneru A, Mtesigwa T, McCree R, Lisovicz NF, et al. Barriers and facilitators to Cervical Cancer Screening, diagnosis, Follow-Up care and treatment: perspectives of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Women and Health Care Practitioners in Tanzania. Oncologist. 2019;24(1):69–75.
pubmed: 29934410
Mutyaba T, Faxelid E, Mirembe F, Weiderpass E. Influences on uptake of reproductive health services in Nsangi community of Uganda and their implications for cervical cancer screening. Reprod Health. 2007;4(1):4.
pubmed: 17594474
pmcid: 1936416
Rendle KA, Ramogola-Masire D, Monare B, Ogden SN, Toneff HK, Saia CA, et al. Patient perspectives on delays in cervical cancer screening and follow-up care in Botswana: a mixed methods study. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):195.
pubmed: 35643491
pmcid: 9148477
Mwaka AD, Okello ES, Orach CG. Barriers to biomedical care and use of traditional medicines for treatment of cervical cancer: an exploratory qualitative study in northern Uganda. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015;24(4):503–13.
pubmed: 24923866
Driscoll SD. Barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening in high incidence populations: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Women Health. 2016;56(4):448–67.
pubmed: 26496628
Kreps GL. Promoting patient comprehension of relevant health information. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2018;7(1):56.
pubmed: 30236157
pmcid: 6389229
Lindau ST, Basu A, Leitsch SA. Health literacy as a predictor of follow-up after an abnormal pap smear: a prospective study. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):829–34.
pubmed: 16881942
pmcid: 1831576
Najjemba JI, Ndagire R, Mulamira P, Kibudde S, Lwanira CN. Treatment compliance among adult cervical cancer patients receiving care at Uganda cancer institute, Uganda: a retrospective data review. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):631.
pubmed: 37407972
pmcid: 10324123
Cha EY, Chun H. Barriers and challenges to Cervical Cancer Screening, Follow-Up, and Prevention measures among Korean immigrant women in Hawaii. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2021;8(2):132–8.
pubmed: 33688561
pmcid: 7934592
Mabachi NM, Wexler C, Acharya H, Maloba M, Oyowe K, Goggin K, et al. Piloting a systems level intervention to improve cervical cancer screening, treatment and follow up in Kenya. Front Med. 2022;9:930462.
Mohammad Z, Ahmad N, Baharom A. The effects of Theory-based Educational intervention and WhatsApp follow-up on Papanicolaou Smear Uptake among postnatal women in Malaysia: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022;10(6):e32089.
pubmed: 35759319
pmcid: 9274386
Sahasrabuddhe VV, Parham GP, Mwanahamuntu MH, Vermund SH. Cervical Cancer Prevention in Low- and Middle-Income countries: feasible, affordable, essential. Cancer Prev Res. 2012;5(1):11–7.