Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cervical cancer is an important public health problem among adult women in developing countries in South and Central America, sub-Saharan Africa, and south and south-east Asia. Frequently repeated cytology screening programmes--either organized or opportunistic--have led to a large decline in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in developed countries. In contrast, cervical cancer remains largely uncontrolled in high-risk developing countries because of ineffective or no screening. This article briefly reviews the experience from existing screening and research initiatives in developing countries. Substantial costs are involved in providing the infrastructure, manpower, consumables, follow-up and surveillance for both organized and opportunistic screening programmes for cervical cancer. Owing to their limited health care resources, developing countries cannot afford the models of frequently repeated screening of women over a wide age range that are used in developed countries. Many low-income developing countries, including most in sub-Saharan Africa, have neither the resources nor the capacity for their health services to organize and sustain any kind of screening programme. Middle-income developing countries, which currently provide inefficient screening, should reorganize their programmes in the light of experiences from other countries and lessons from their past failures. Middle-income countries intending to organize a new screening programme should start first in a limited geographical area, before considering any expansion. It is also more realistic and effective to target the screening on high-risk women once or twice in their lifetime using a highly sensitive test, with an emphasis on high coverage (>80%) of the targeted population. Efforts to organize an effective screening programme in these developing countries will have to find adequate financial resources, develop the infrastructure, train the needed manpower, and elaborate surveillance mechanisms for screening, investigating, treating, and following up the targeted women. The findings from the large body of research on various screening approaches carried out in developing countries and from the available managerial guidelines should be taken into account when reorganizing existing programmes and when considering new screening initiatives.

SummaryThe Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study investigated the effectiveness of a two-step screening program for osteoporosis in women. We found no overall reduction in fractures from systematic screening compared to the current case-finding strategy. The group of moderate- to high-risk women, who accepted the invitation to DXA, seemed to benefit from the program.IntroductionThe purpose of the ROSE study was to investigate the effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) derived from a self-administered questionnaire to select women for DXA scan. After the scanning, standard osteoporosis management according to Danish national guidelines was followed.MethodsParticipants were randomized to either screening or control group, and randomization was stratified according to age and area of residence. Inclusion took place from February 2010 to November 2011. Participants received a self-administered questionnaire, and women in the screening group with a FRAX score ≥ 15% (major osteoporotic fractures) were invited to a DXA scan. Primary outcome was incident clinical fractures. Intention-to-treat analysis and two per-protocol analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 3416 fractures were observed during a median follow-up of 5 years. No significant differences were found in the intention-to-treat analyses with 34,229 women included aged 65–80 years. The per-protocol analyses showed a risk reduction in the group that underwent DXA scanning compared to women in the control group with a FRAX ≥ 15%, in regard to major osteoporotic fractures, hip fractures, and all fractures. The risk reduction was most pronounced for hip fractures (adjusted SHR 0.741, p = 0.007).ConclusionsCompared to an office-based case-finding strategy, the two-step systematic screening strategy had no overall effect on fracture incidence. The two-step strategy seemed, however, to be beneficial in the group of women who were identified by FRAX as moderate- or high-risk patients and complied with DXA.

Low syphilis testing uptake is a major public health issue among men who have sex with men (MSM) in many low- and middle-income countries. Syphilis self-testing (SST) may complement and extend facility-based testing. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of providing SST on increasing syphilis testing uptake among MSM in China. An open-label, parallel 3-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between January 7, 2020 and July 17, 2020. Men who were at least 18 years of age, had condomless anal sex with men in the past year, reported not testing for syphilis in the last 6 months, and had a stable residence with mailing addresses were recruited from 124 cities in 26 Chinese provinces. Using block randomization with blocks of size 12, enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) into 3 arms: standard of care arm, standard SST arm, and lottery incentivized SST arm (1 in 10 chance to win US$15 if they had a syphilis test). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who tested for syphilis during the trial period and confirmed with photo verification and between arm comparisons were estimated with risk differences (RDs). Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis: Participants were included in the complete case analysis if they had initiated at least 1 follow-up survey. The Syphilis/HIV Duo rapid test kit was used. A total of 451 men were enrolled. In total, 136 (90·7%, 136/150) in the standard of care arm, 142 (94·0%, 142/151) in the standard of SST arm, and 137 (91·3%, 137/150) in the lottery incentivized SST arm were included in the final analysis. The proportion of men who had at least 1 syphilis test during the trial period was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55.5% to 71.3%, p = 0.001) in the standard SST arm, 65.7% (95% CI: 57.7% to 73.6%, p = 0.0002) in the lottery incentivized SST arm, and 14.7% (95% CI: 8.8% to 20.7%, p < 0.001) in the standard of care arm. The estimated RD between the standard SST and standard of care arm was 48.7% (95% CI: 37.8% to 58.4%, p < 0.001). The majority (78.5%, 95% CI: 72.7% to 84.4%, p < 0.001) of syphilis self-testers reported never testing for syphilis. The cost per person tested was US$26.55 for standard SST, US$28.09 for the lottery incentivized SST, and US$66.19 for the standard of care. No study-related adverse events were reported during the study duration. Limitation was that the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions may have accentuated demand for decentralized testing. Compared to standard of care, providing SST significantly increased the proportion of MSM testing for syphilis in China and was cheaper (per person tested). Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1900022409.

To identify health systems-level barriers to treatment for women who screened positive for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) in a cervical cancer prevention program in Kenya. In a trial of implementation strategies for hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening in western Kenya in 2018-2019, women underwent hrHPV testing offered through community health campaigns, and women who tested positive were referred to government health facilities for cryotherapy. The current analysis draws on treatment data from this trial, as well as two observational studies that were conducted: 1) periodic assessments of the treatment sites to ascertain availability of resources for treatment and 2) surveys with treatment providers to elicit their views on barriers to care. Bivariate analyses were performed for the site assessment data, and the provider survey data were analyzed descriptively. Seventeen site assessments were performed across three treatment sites. All three sites reported instances of supply stockouts, two sites reported treatment delays due to lack of supplies, and two sites reported treatment delays due to provider factors. Of the 16 providers surveyed, ten (67%) perceived lack of knowledge of HPV and cervical cancer as the main barrier in women's decision to get treated, and seven (47%) perceived financial barriers for transportation and childcare as the main barrier to accessing treatment. Eight (50%) endorsed that providing treatment free of cost was the greatest facilitator of treatment. Patient education and financial support to reach treatment are potential areas for intervention to increase rates of hrHPV+ women presenting for treatment. It is also essential to eliminate barriers that prevent treatment of women who present, including ensuring adequate supplies and staff for treatment.

To evaluate the impact of socioeconomic support on tuberculosis preventive therapy initiation in household contacts of tuberculosis patients and on treatment success in patients. A non-blinded, household-randomized, controlled study was performed between February 2014 and June 2015 in 32 shanty towns in Peru. It included patients being treated for tuberculosis and their household contacts. Households were randomly assigned to either the standard of care provided by Peru's national tuberculosis programme (control arm) or the same standard of care plus socioeconomic support (intervention arm). Socioeconomic support comprised conditional cash transfers up to 230 United States dollars per household, community meetings and household visits. Rates of tuberculosis preventive therapy initiation and treatment success (i.e. cure or treatment completion) were compared in intervention and control arms. Overall, 282 of 312 (90%) households agreed to participate: 135 in the intervention arm and 147 in the control arm. There were 410 contacts younger than 20 years: 43% in the intervention arm initiated tuberculosis preventive therapy versus 25% in the control arm (adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 2.2; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.1-4.1). An intention-to-treat analysis showed that treatment was successful in 64% (87/135) of patients in the intervention arm versus 53% (78/147) in the control arm (unadjusted OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.0-2.6). These improvements were equitable, being independent of household poverty. A tuberculosis-specific, socioeconomic support intervention increased uptake of tuberculosis preventive therapy and tuberculosis treatment success and is being evaluated in the Community Randomized Evaluation of a Socioeconomic Intervention to Prevent TB (CRESIPT) project.

Background Despite substance use disorders (SUD) being a leading cause of preventable death in the US, most people who visit primary care in the US are not screened for SUD. There are multiple barriers to screening for, identifying, and managing SUD in primary care. However, there are also promising strategies available to address these barriers, including practice facilitation (PF), learning collaboratives (LC), and performance incentives (PI). Methods This study is a 48-site cluster-randomized 2 × 2 factorial implementation trial that aims to compare the effectiveness of several strategies for implementing evidence-based screening and interventions for SUDs in primary care. Practices will be randomized to one of four implementation strategies: (1) PF only, (2) PF + LC, (3) PF + PI, or (4) all three strategies. An estimated 144 participants from 48 primary care practices will be enrolled. All participants will receive PF to guide them in making changes to implement screening for SUD, focusing on a defined change package and associated tools. PF includes quality improvement (QI) coaching, as well as electronic health record (EHR) support, training, and expert consultation. LC includes monthly virtual education sessions led by content experts to support practice improvement and innovation with didactics on key topics as well as facilitating participant interactions to share experiences. PI includes financial incentives for performance. Primary care practices will be the unit of analysis for both the primary outcome (rate of SUD screening) and secondary outcomes (rates of evidence-based interventions for SUD). Assessments will be conducted during a 12-month implementation phase and 12-month sustainment phase. Discussion This study will produce evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of several strategies on implementation and sustainment of evidence-based screening and interventions for SUD within primary care. It will also generate knowledge about mechanisms of change in primary care settings. The results are expected to have a positive impact by providing a nuanced understanding of the incremental benefits of LC and/or PI to inform primary care practices, health systems, policymakers, and payers about optimal implementation strategies for SUD screening and evidence-based interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06524232. July 23, 2024 –registered.

Background ‘Implementation interventions’ refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence. Methods First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients ( n = 47) and HCP ( n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients ( n = 15) and HCPs ( n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention ‘fit’ with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness. Results We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients. Conclusions Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.

Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in the United States (US) remains a complex public health crisis. Women who experience IPV are among the most vulnerable patients seen in primary care. Screening increases the detection of IPV and, when paired with appropriate response interventions, can mitigate the health effects of IPV. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has encouraged evidence-based IPV screening programs since 2014, yet adoption is modest and questions remain regarding the optimal ways to implement these practices, which are not yet available within the majority of VA primary care clinics. Methods/design This paper describes the planned evaluation of VA’s nationwide implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care clinics through a randomized implementation-effectiveness hybrid type 2 trial. With the support of our VA operational partners, we propose a stepped wedge design to compare the impact of two implementation strategies of differing intensities (toolkit + implementation as usual vs. toolkit + implementation facilitation) and investigate the clinical effectiveness of IPV screening programs. Using balanced randomization, 16–20 VA Medical Centers will be assigned to receive implementation facilitation in one of three waves, with implementation support lasting 6 months. Implementation facilitation in this effort consists of the coordinated efforts of the two types of facilitators, external and internal. Implementation facilitation is compared to dissemination of a toolkit plus implementation as usual. We propose a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (clinical records data) and qualitative (key informant interviews) implementation outcomes, as well as quantitative (clinical records data) clinical effectiveness outcomes. We will supplement these data collection methods with provider surveys to assess discrete implementation strategies used before, during, and following implementation facilitation. The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will guide the qualitative data collection and analysis. Summative data will be analyzed using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Discussion This research will advance national VHA efforts by identifying the practices and strategies useful for enhancing the implementation of IPV screening programs, thereby ultimately improving services for and health of women seen in primary care. Trial registration NCT04106193 . Registered on 23 September 2019.

Background In the Tigray region of Ethiopia, Health Extension Workers (HEWs) conduct Tuberculosis (TB) screening for all household (HH) contacts. However, there is limited evidence on implementation status of HH contact TB screening by HEWs. The aim of this program assessment was to describe the implementation status and associated factors of HH contact TB screening by HEWs. Methods This programme assessment was conducted in three randomly selected districts from March to April 2018. Data was collected by using pre-tested structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics was carried out using frequency tables. Logistic regression analysis was done to identify factors associated with HH contacts screening by HEWs. Results In this programme assessment a total of HHs of 411 index TB cases were included. One-fifth (21.7%) of index TB cases had at least one HH contact screened for TB by HEWs. Having TB treatment supporter (TTS) during intensive phase of index TB case (AOR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.06–6.01), health education on TB to HH contacts by HEWs (AOR = 4.28, 95% CI: 2.04–9.00), HH visit by HEWs within 6 months prior to the programme assessment (AOR = 5.84, 95% CI: 2.81–12.17) and discussions about TB activities by HEWs with Women Development Army (WDA) leaders (AOR = 9.51, 95% CI: 1.49–60.75) were significantly associated with household contact TB screening by HEWs. Conclusions Our finding revealed that the proportion of HH contact TB screened by HEWs was low. Therefore, HEWs should routinely visit HHs of index TB cases and provide regular health education to improve contact screening practice. In addition, it is highly recommended to strengthen HEWs regular discussion about TB activities with WDA leaders and TB TTS.

Background Previous studies suggest that health intervention designed to increase cervical cancer screening has been effective to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of a home-based health education intervention for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake delivered by trained female community health volunteers (FCHVs), a category of community health worker in Nepal. Methods A community-based, open-label, two-armed, cluster-randomized trial [seven clusters (geographical wards) randomized for the intervention, and seven for the control arm]. The participants are recruited from a population-based survey with a sample size of 884. Based on population proportion size, 277 women will be recruited for the intervention group and 413 women recruited for the control group. A 12-month community-based health education intervention will be administered mobilizing the FCHVs, based on the Health Belief Model. The primary outcome measure of the study will be the difference in percentage of cervical cancer screening uptake between the two study arms. The primary outcomes will be modeled by using mixed-effect logistic regression analysis. Discussion COBIN-C is the first study investigating the effect of a community-based health education intervention by FCHVs on increasing cervical cancer screening uptake among women in Nepal. The purpose of this study is to develop and implement a home-based, culturally sensitive program to increase cervical cancer screening coverage at the community level. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03808064 . Registered on January 14, 2019.