medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2003, Number S3

<< Back Next >>

salud publica mex 2003; 45 (S3)

Factors affecting utilization of cervical cancer prevention services in low-resource settings

Bingham A, Bishop A, Coffey P, Winkler J, Bradley J, Dzuba I, Agurto I

Language: English
References: 28
Page: 408-416
PDF size: 102.26 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Strategies for introducing or strengthening cervical cancer prevention programs must focus on ensuring that appropriate, cost-effective services are available and that women who most need the services will, in fact, use them. This article summarizes the experiences of research projects in Bolivia, Peru, Kenya, South Africa, and Mexico. Factors that affect participation rates in cervical cancer prevention programs are categorized in three sections. The first section describes factors that arise from prevailing sociocultural norms that influence women’s views on reproductive health, well being, and notions of illness. The second section discusses factors related to the clinical requirements and the type of service delivery system in which a woman is being asked to participate. The third section discusses factors related to quality of care. Examples of strategies that programs are using to encourage women’s participation in cervical cancer prevention services are provided.


REFERENCES

  1. Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R. Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 2001;79(10):954-962.

  2. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wainwright H, Wright TC Jr. Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource-poor settings. Cancer 2000;89(4):826-833.

  3. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A, et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing within a cervical screening programme: Summary and conclusions. Br J Cancer 2000;83(5):561-565.

  4. Belinson JL, Pretorius RG, Zhang WH, Wu LY, Qiao YL, Elson P. Cervical cancer screening by simple visual inspection after acetic acid. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98(3):441-444.

  5. University of Zimbabwe/JHPIEGO Cervical Cancer Project. Visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening: Test qualities in a primary-care setting. Lancet 1999;353(9156):869-873.

  6. Wesley R, Sankaranarayanan R, Mathew B, Chandralekha B, Aysha- Beegum A, Amma NS. Evaluation of visual inspection as a screening test for cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1997;75(3):436-440.

  7. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Timely detection of cervical cancer. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 1996;30(4):285-289.

  8. Pan American Health Organization. Cervical cancer: Fighting a leading killer in the Americas [Press release]. Washington D.C.: PAHO February 7, 2002. Available online at: www.paho.org.

  9. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMedA 1999;281(4):347-353.

  10. Pap smears: An important but imperfect screening method. Cervical cancer prevention fact sheet. Seattle (WA): Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH): February 2001.

  11. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Moss S, de Ruiz PA, Castro JS, Hernández-Avila, M. Cervical cancer screening in developing countries: Why is it ineffective? The case of Mexico. Arch Med Res 1999;30:240-250.

  12. Miller A, Robles S. Workshop on screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Central America. Bull Pan Am Health Organ (PAHO) 1996; 30(4):397-408.

  13. Herdman C, Sherris J. Planning appropriate cervical cancer prevention programs. 2nd edition. Seattle (WA): Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), 2000.

  14. Fylan F. Screening for cervical cancer: A review of women’s attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. Br J Gen Pract 1998;48:1509-1514.

  15. Bingham A, Lagos G, Winkler J, Palomino A. Monitoring quality of care in cervical cancer prevention services: A client feedback process. Presented at the 29th Annual Global Health Conference; 2002; Washington, DC, USA.

  16. Winkler JL, Bingham A, Bishop A, Ferreccio C, Del Aguila R, Gonzáles M et al. Developing sustainable community strategies for promoting the prevention of cervical cancer. Presented at the 19th International Papillomavirus Conference; 2001 September 1-7; Florianópolis, Brazil.

  17. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH). Proceedings of the Western Kenya Cervical Cancer Prevention Project (WKCCPP) dissemination workshop; 2002, March 7. Nairobi, Kenya. Copies of this report are available by contacting: accp@path.org or by writing: Cervical Cancer Prevention Team, PATH, 1455 NW Leary Way, Seattle (WA), 98107 USA.

  18. Bingham A, Abwao S, Luchemo N. Formative research in cervical cancer prevention in Kenya: The Western Kenya Cervical Cancer Prevention Project. Roundtable discussion, 28th Annual Global Health Conference; 2001 May 29-June 1; Washington, DC, USA.

  19. Buskens I, Bradley J. Women’s perspectives on cervical cancer prevention procedures. New York: EngenderHealth, 2002.

  20. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: An analysis of factors influencing test performance. Cancer 2002;94(6):1699-1707.

  21. Risi L, Bindman JP, Campbel OMR, Inhrie J, Everet K, Bradley J et al. Media interventions to increase cervical screening uptake in South Africa: Study of effectiveness. Health Educ res (In press).

  22. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH). Qualitative assessment of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding cervical cancer among selected women and providers in Nayarit State, Mexico. Seattle (WA): PATH, 1998.

  23. Agurto I. Bridging distances: Preventive services and women’s concerns. Program on Non-Communicable Diseases, Division of Disease Prevention and Control. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization, 2001.

  24. AVSC International. COPE: Client-oriented, provider-efficient services: A process and tools for quality improvement in family planning and other reproductive health services. New York: AVSC International, 1995.

  25. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Castro R, Allen B, Nájera P, Alonso de Ruiz PA, Hernández-Avila M. Barriers to the early detection of cervical-uterine cancer in Mexico. J Women’s Health 1999;8(3):399-408.

  26. Álvarez S. Knowledge and fears among Chilean women with regard to the Papanicolaou test. Bull Pan Am Health Organ (PAHO) 1996;30(4): 354-361.

  27. Swaddiwudhipong W, Chaovakiratipong C, Nguntra P, Mahasakpan P, Tatip Y, Boonmak C. A mobile unit: An effective service for cervical cancer screening among rural Thai women. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28:35-39.

  28. Robles S, White CF, Peruga A. Trends in the cervical cancer mortality in the Americas. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 1996;30(4):290-301.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com