CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Acceptability of cervical cancer screening using visual inspection among women attending a childhood immunization clinic in Uganda

Open access
Li, Meng, Nyabigambo, Agnes, Navvuga, Patricia, Nuwamanya, Elly, Nuwasiima, Afra, Kaganda, Paschal, Asiimwe, Francis T., Vodicka, Elisabeth +6 more·2017·Papillomavirus Research
DOI 10.1016/j.pvr.2017.06.004PMC PMC5883247
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptability and performance of cervical cancer (CC) screening using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) integrated into a rural immunization clinic in Uganda. METHODS/MATERIALS: We conducted a cross-sectional pilot study in rural Uganda. We explored associations between women's characteristics and acceptance of VIA testing. We collected samples for Papanicolaou (Pap) smear testing in a random subset of women and used results from this test as a comparator for assessing VIA performance. RESULTS: We enrolled 625 women of whom 571 (91.4%) accepted and 54 (8.6%) refused CC screening. In the univariate model, age (Odds Ratio (OR)=1.10; p-value<0.001) and employment status (OR 2.00; p-value=0.019) were significantly associated with acceptance of VIA screening. In the multivariate model, no characteristic was independently associated with acceptance of VIA screening after adjusting for other factors. Compared to reference Pap smear, CC screening with VIA had a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 97.7%. CONCLUSIONS: CC screening with VIA is highly acceptable in the setting of rural immunization clinics in Uganda. Studies to assess which screening method would be the most effective and cost-effective are needed before stakeholders can consider adopting screening programs at scale.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pvr.2017.06.004

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [1]Arbyn M. Castellsague X. de Sanjose S. Bruni L. Saraiya M. Bray F. Worldwide burden of cervical cancer in 2008 Ann. Oncol. 22 12 2011 2675 2686 21471563
  2. [2]Wabinga H.R. Parkin D.M. Wabwire-Mangen F. Nambooze S. Trends in cancer incidence in Kyadondo County, Uganda, 1960–1997 Br. J. Cancer 82 9 2000 1585 1592 10789729 PMC2363394
  3. [3]Sherris J. Wittet S. Kleine A. Sellors J. Luciani S. Sankaranarayanan R. Evidence-based, alternative cervical cancer screening approaches in low-resource settings Int. Perspect. Sex Reprod. Health 35 3 2009 147 154 19805020
  4. [4]Gulland A. Uganda launches HPV vaccination programme to fight its commonest cancer BMJ 345 2012 e6055 22966177
  5. [5]De Vuyst H. Alemany L. Lacey C. Chibwesha C.J. Sahasrabuddhe V. Banura C. The burden of human papillomavirus infections and related diseases in sub-Saharan Africa Vaccine 31 Suppl. 5 2013 SF32 SF46 PMC4144870 24331746
  6. [6]Asiimwe S. Whalen C.C. Tisch D.J. Tumwesigye E. Sethi A.K. Prevalence and predictors of high-risk human papillomavirus infection in a population-based sample of women in rural Uganda Int. J. STD AIDS 19 9 2008 605 610 18725551 PMC2847363
  7. [7]Paul P. Winkler J.L. Bartolini R.M. Penny M.E. Huong T.T. Nga le T. Screen-and-treat approach to cervical cancer prevention using visual inspection with acetic acid and cryotherapy: experiences, perceptions, and beliefs from demonstration projects in Peru, Uganda, and Vietnam Oncologist 18 12 2013 1278 1284 24217554 PMC3868422
  8. [8]Kim J.J. Campos H.G. O'Shea M. Diaz M. Mutyaba I. Model-based impact and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in sub-Saharan Africa Vaccine 31 Suppl. 5 2013 SF60 SF72 24331749
  9. [9]De Vuyst H. Claeys P. Njiru S. Muchiri L. Steyaert S. De Sutter P. Comparison of pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, human papillomavirus DNA-PCR testing and cervicography Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 89 2 2005 120 126 15847874
  10. [10]Mvundura M. Tsu V. Estimating the costs of cervical cancer screening in high-burden sub-Saharan African countries Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 126 2 2014 151 155 24792401
  11. [11]Mutyaba T. Mmiro F.A. Weiderpass E. Knowledge, attitudes and practices on cervical cancer screening among the medical workers of Mulago Hospital, Uganda BMC Med. Educ. 6 2006 13 16509979 PMC1413529
  12. [12]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 4 2007 4 17594474 PMC1936416
  13. [13]Mutyaba T. Mirembe F. Sandin S. Weiderpass E. Male partner involvement in reducing loss to follow-up after cervical cancer screening in Uganda Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 107 2 2009 103 106 19716557
  14. [14]Mutyaba T. Mirembe F. Sandin S. Weiderpass E. Evaluation of 'see-see and treat' strategy and role of HIV on cervical cancer prevention in Uganda Reprod. Health 7 2010 4 20459733 PMC2882355
  15. [15]Vaccarella S. Lortet-Tieulent J. Plummer M. Franceschi S. Bray F. Worldwide trends in cervical cancer incidence: impact of screening against changes in disease risk factors Eur. J. Cancer 49 15 2013 3262 3273 23751569
  16. [16]Mwaka A.D. Wabinga H.R. Mayanja-Kizza H. Mind the gaps: a qualitative study of perceptions of healthcare professionals on challenges and proposed remedies for cervical cancer help-seeking in post conflict northern Uganda BMC Fam. Pract. 14 2013 193 24341601 PMC3915559
  17. [17]Osingada C.P. Ninsiima G. Chalo R.N. Muliira J.K. Ngabirano T. Determinants of uptake of cervical cancer screening services at a no-cost reproductive health clinic managed by nurse-midwives Cancer Nurs. 2014 24831038
  18. [18]Osingada C.P. Ninsiima G. Chalo R.N. Muliira J.K. Ngabirano T. Agreement of colposcope and gynocular in assessment of cervical lesions by swede score: a randomized, crossover pilot trial J. Low Genit. Tract. Dis. 17 4 2013 372 377 23645068
  19. [19]Kumakech E. Andersson S. Wabinga H. Berggren V. Integration of HIV and cervical cancer screening perceptions of healthcare providers and policy makers in Uganda BMC Public Health 14 2014 810 25099996 PMC4246470
  20. [20]Ogilvie G.S. Mitchell S. Sekikubo M. Biryabarema C. Byamugisha J. Jeronimo J. Results of a community-based cervical cancer screening pilot project using human papillomavirus self-sampling in Kampala, Uganda Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 122 2 2013 118 123 23731506
  21. [21]Ogilvie G.S. Mitchell S. Sekikubo M. Biryabarema C. Byamugisha J. Jeronimo J. A multicountry evaluation of careHPV testing, visual inspection with acetic acid, and papanicolaou testing for the detection of cervical cancer Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 24 3 2014 576 585 24557438 PMC4047307
  22. [23]Teng F.F. Mitchell S.M. Sekikubo M. Biryabarema C. Byamugisha J.K. Steinberg M. Understanding the role of embarrassment in gynaecological screening: a qualitative study from the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda BMJ Open 4 4 2014 e004783 PMC3987737 24727360
  23. [24]Teng F.F. Mitchell S.M. Sekikubo M. Biryabarema C. Byamugisha J.K. Steinberg M. Acceptability of cervical cancer screening via visual inspection with acetic acid or Lugol's iodine at Mulago Hospital, Uganda Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 119 3 2012 262 265 22980432
  24. [27]Bbaale E. Factors influencing childhood immunization in Uganda J. Health, Popul. Nutr. 31 1 2013 118 129 23617212 PMC3702366

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, M., Nyabigambo, A., Navvuga, P., Nuwamanya, E., Nuwasiima, A., Kaganda, P., Asiimwe, F. T., Vodicka, E., Mugisha, N. M., Mukose, A., Kwesiga, D. K., Lubinga, S. J., Garrison, L. P., & Babigumira, J. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Makerere University (UG)
  • Uganda Cancer Institute (UG)
Corresponding author
Li, Meng
ORCID
Venue
Papillomavirus Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
4
Pages
17-21
ISSN
2405-8521 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pvr.2017.06.004
PMC
PMC5883247
OpenAlex
W2621663978
Cited by
22
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Papillomavirus Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Grand Challenges Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, visual inspection with acetic acid, screening acceptability, rural women, screening sensitivity and specificity, employment status, age, Uganda
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Colposcopy, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Immunization, Mass Screening, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pilot Projects, Pregnancy, Sensitivity and Specificity, Uganda, Vaginal Smears, Visual Fields, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer, Papanicolaou Test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review