No abstract

Fathers are important in the IMC decision-making process. Fathers, as well as mothers, should be targeted for optimal scale-up of IMC services. Circumcision programs should offer services for males of all ages, as male circumcision at some age is highly acceptable to both men and women.

BackgroundSeveral sub-Saharan African countries plan to scale-up infant male circumcision (IMC) for cost-efficient HIV prevention. Little data exist about the safety of IMC in East and southern Africa. We calculated adverse event (AE) rate and risks for AEs associated with introduction of IMC services at five government health facilities in western Kenya.MethodsAE data were analyzed for IMC procedures performed between September, 2009 and November, 2011. Healthy infants aged ≤2 months and weighing ≥2.5 kg were eligible for IMC. Following parental consent, trained clinicians provided IMC services free of charge under local anesthesia using the Mogen clamp. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used to explore AE risk factors.FindingsA total of 1,239 IMC procedures were performed. Median age of infants was 4 days (IQR = 1, 16). The overall AE rate among infants reviewed post-operatively was 2.7% (18/678; 95%CI: 1.4, 3.9). There was one severe AE involving excision of a small piece of the lateral aspect of the glans penis. Other AEs were mild or moderate and were treated conservatively. Babies one month of age or older were more likely to have an AE (OR 3.20; 95%CI: 1.23, 8.36). AE rate did not differ by nurse versus clinical officer or number of previous procedures performed.ConclusionIMC services provided in Kenyan Government hospitals in the context of routine IMC programming have AE rates comparable to those in developed countries. The optimal time for IMC is within the first month of life.

BackgroundBreast and cervical cancers have emerged as major global health challenges and disproportionately lead to excess morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) when compared to high-income countries. The objective of this paper was to highlight key findings, recommendations, and gaps in research and practice identified through a scoping study of recent reviews in breast and cervical cancer in LMICs.MethodsWe conducted a scoping study based on the six-stage framework of Arskey and O’Malley. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, and CINAHL with the following inclusion criteria: 1) published between 2005-February 2015, 2) focused on breast or cervical cancer 3) focused on LMIC, 4) review article, and 5) published in English.ResultsThrough our systematic search, 63 out of the 94 identified cervical cancer reviews met our selection criteria and 36 of the 54 in breast cancer. Cervical cancer reviews were more likely to focus upon prevention and screening, while breast cancer reviews were more likely to focus upon treatment and survivorship. Few of the breast cancer reviews referenced research and data from LMICs themselves; cervical cancer reviews were more likely to do so. Most reviews did not include elements of the PRISMA checklist.ConclusionOverall, a limited evidence base supports breast and cervical cancer control in LMICs. Further breast and cervical cancer prevention and control studies are necessary in LMICs.

No abstract