The incidence of cervical cancer in Malawi is the highest in the world and projected to increase in the absence of interventions. Although government policy supports screening using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), screening provision is limited due to lack of infrastructure, trained personnel, and the cost and availability of gas for cryotherapy. Recently, thermo‐coagulation has been acknowledged as a safe and acceptable procedure suitable for low‐resource settings. We introduced thermo‐coagulation for treatment of VIA‐positive lesions as an alternative to cryotherapy within a cervical screening service based on VIA, coupled with appropriate, sustainable pathways of care for women with high‐grade lesions and cancers. Detailed planning was undertaken for VIA clinics, and approvals were obtained from the Ministry of Health, Regional and Village Chiefs. Educational resources were developed. Thermo‐coagulators were introduced into hospital and health centre settings, with theoretical and practical training in safe use and maintenance of equipment. A total of 7,088 previously unscreened women attended VIA clinics between October 2013 and March 2015. Screening clinics were held daily in the hospital and weekly in the health centres. Overall, VIA positivity was 6.1%. Almost 90% received same day treatment in the hospital setting, and 3‐ to 6‐month cure rates of more than 90% are observed. Thermo‐coagulation proved feasible and acceptable in this setting. Effective implementation requires comprehensive training and provider support, ongoing competency assessment, quality assurance and improvement audit. Thermo‐coagulation offers an effective alternative to cryotherapy and encouraged VIA screening of many more women.
HR-HPV testing using Xpert HPV was practical in a small rural laboratory. The rapid turnaround (within 2h) could facilitate a 'see and treat' programme. Partial genotyping allows assessment of risk beyond HPV 16/18. The high prevalence of HPV 31 and related types warrants further investigation.
Disproportionate cervical cancer burden falls on women in low-income countries; and there are new efforts to scale up prevention worldwide, including via "screen and treat" for detection and removal of abnormal cervical lesions. This study examines Malawian women's experiences with "screen and treat;" this is an under-explored topic in the literature, which has focused largely on knowledge about and attitudes toward screening, but not on experiences with screening. We interviewed 47 women who have been screened at least once for cervical cancer. The interview guide and analysis approach was informed by the Multi-Level Health Outcomes Framework. Women were recruited at facilities that offer "screen and treat," and asked about their experiences with screening. The average age of respondents was 40 years, and approximately half were HIV-negative. Although women were knowledgeable about the benefits of screening, they articulated many barriers including being turned away because of stock-outs of equipment, far distances to services, discomfort with male providers, and poor communication with providers. Alongside the many health education campaigns to increase awareness and demand for "screen and treat" services, the global public health community must also address implementation barriers in the resource-constrained health systems where burden is greatest. Particular attention should be paid to quality and person-centeredness of "screen and treat" services, to optimize uptake and engagement in care.
Background Cervical cancer remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity in low- and middle-income countries, despite the availability of effective prevention approaches. “Screen and treat” (a single-visit strategy to identify and remove abnormal cervical cells) is the recommended secondary prevention approach in low-resource settings, but there has been relatively scarce robust implementation science evidence on barriers and facilitators to providing “screen and treat” from the provider perspective, or about thermocoagulation as a lesion removal technique. Methods Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted interviews with ten experienced “screen and treat” providers in Malawi. We asked questions based on the CFIR Guide, used the CFIR Guide codebook for a descriptive analysis in NVivo, and added recommended modifications for studies in low-income settings. Results Seven CFIR constructs were identified as positively influencing implementation, and six as negatively influencing implementation. The two strong positive influences were the relative advantage of thermocoagulation versus cryotherapy (Innovation Characteristics) and respondents’ knowledge and beliefs about providing “screen and treat” (Individual Characteristics). The two strong negative influences were the availability of ongoing refresher trainings to stay up-to-date on skills (Inner Setting, Implementation Climate) and insufficient resources (staffing, infrastructure, supplies) to provide “screen and treat” to all women who need it (Inner Setting, Readiness for Implementation). Weak positive factors included perceived scalability and access to knowledge/information, as well as compatibility, leadership engagement, and team characteristics, but these latter three were mixed in valence. Weak negative influences were structural characteristics and donor priorities; and mixed but weakly negative influences were relative priority and engaging clients. Cross-cutting themes included the importance of broad buy-in (including different cadres of health workers and leadership at the facility and in the government) and the opportunities and challenges of offering integrated care (screening plus other services). Conclusions Although “screen and treat” is viewed as effective and important, many implementation barriers remain. Our findings suggest that implementation strategies will need to be multi-level, include a diverse set of stakeholders, and explicitly address both screening and treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.