Cited by 241Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementReproductive tract infections research

Safety, acceptability, and feasibility of a single-visit approach to cervical-cancer prevention in rural Thailand: a demonstration project

Lynne Gaffikin, Paul D. Blumenthal, Mark R. Emerson, Khunying Kobchitt Limpaphayom·2003·The Lancet

Abstract

Background To increase screening and treatment coverage, innovative approaches to cervical-cancer prevention are being investigated in rural Thailand. We assessed the value of a single-visit approach combining visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid wash (VIA) and cryotherapy. Methods 12 trained nurses provided services in mobile (village health centre-based) and static (hospital-based) teams in four districts of Roi-et Province, Thailand. Over 7 months, 5999 women were tested by VIA. If they tested positive, after counselling about the benefits, potential risks, and probable side-effects they were offered cryotherapy. Data measuring safety, acceptability, feasibility, and effort to implement the programme were gathered. Findings The VIA test-positive rate was 13.3% (798/5999), and 98.5% (609/618) of those eligible accepted immediate treatment. Overall, 756 women received cryotherapy, 629 (83.2%) of whom returned for their first follow-up visit. No major complications were recorded, and 33 (4.4%) of those treated returned for a perceived problem. Only 17 (2.2%) of the treated women needed clinical management other than reassurance about side-effects. Both VIA and cryotherapy were highly acceptable to the patients (over 95% expressed satisfaction with their experience). At their 1-year visit, the squamocolumnar junction was visible to the nurses, and the VIA test-negative rate was 94.3%. Interpretation A single-visit approach with VIA and cryotherapy seems to be safe,…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12707-9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gaffikin, L., Blumenthal, P. D., Emerson, M. R., & Limpaphayom, K. K.
Affiliations
Jhpiego (US)
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-03
Volume
361
Issue
9360
Pages
814-820
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2117936197
Cited by
241
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
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
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
cervical cancer prevention, visual inspection with acetic acid, cryotherapy, rural health care, mobile medical teams, nurse-led screening, treatment acceptability, treatment safety, Roi Et Province
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Rural Health, Thailand, Patient Satisfaction, Cryotherapy, Rural Health Services, Acetic Acid

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