Search

Background: Cervical cancer continues to threaten women's health, especially in low-resource settings. Regular follow-up after screening and treatment is an effective strategy for monitoring treatment outcomes. Consequently, understanding the factors contributing to patient non-attendance of scheduled follow-up visits is vital to providing high-quality care, reducing morbidity and mortality, and unnecessary healthcare costs in low-resource settings. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was done among healthcare providers and patients who attended the cervical cancer screening clinic at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in southwestern Uganda. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed in line with the social-ecological model to identify barriers and facilitators. Results: We conducted 23 in-depth interviews with 5 healthcare providers and 18 patients. Health system barriers included long waiting time at the facility, long turnaround time for laboratory results, congestion and lack of privacy affecting counselling, and healthcare provider training gaps. The most important interpersonal barrier among married women was lacking support from male partners. Individual-level barriers were lack of money for transport, fear of painful procedures, emotional distress, and illiteracy. Inadequate and inaccurate information was a cross-cutting barrier across the individual, interpersonal, and community levels of the socio-ecological model. The facilitators were social support, positive self-perception, and patient counselling. Conclusions: Our study revealed barriers to retention in care after cervical cancer screening, including lack of partner support, financial and educational constraints, and inadequate information. It also found facilitators that included social support, positive self-perception, and effective counselling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemotherapy is a common treatment for cancer, but it is associated with adverse drug reactions like oral mucositis. This condition destroys basal cells in the oral mucosal layer, causing inflammation and ulceration. This can impact the patient's physical, emotional, and psychological well‐being, affecting treatment outcomes and quality of life. This study aims to determine the prevalence, severity, and risk factors of chemotherapy‐induced oral mucositis among adult cancer patients. Methods: The study was a cross‐sectional study conducted among adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy at the cancer unit of Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in southwestern Uganda. Data was collected through patient interviews, oral examinations, and patient chart reviews. Results: Out of 268 patients, 115 (42.9%) experienced oral mucositis. Grade 2 oral mucositis was the most common (44.3%) followed by grade 1 (35.7%) and grade 3 (20.0%). Independent risk factors of chemotherapy‐induced oral mucositis were female gender (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27–3.78; p‐value = 0.005), poor oral hygiene (AOR = 3.70, 95% CI: 1.51–9.10; p‐value = 0.04), and receiving chemotherapy containing an alkylating agent (AOR = 3.17, 95% CI: 1.63–6.19; p‐value < 0.001). Conclusion: The study found that two out of five chemotherapy patients developed oral mucositis, with nearly half being grade 2. The risk factors identified in our study were comparable to those reported in previous studies. Therefore, identification and assessment of cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy‐induced oral mucositis should be routinely done for proper and timely management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although mobile health (mHealth) interventions have shown promise in improving health outcomes, most of them rarely translate to scale. Prevailing mHealth studies are largely small-sized, short-term and donor-funded pilot studies with limited evidence on their effectiveness. To facilitate scale-up, several frameworks have been proposed to enhance the generic implementation of health interventions. However, there is a lack of a specific focus on the implementation and integration of mHealth interventions in routine care in low-resource settings. Our scoping review aimed to synthesize and develop a framework that could guide the implementation and integration of mHealth interventions., Methods: We searched the PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases for published theories, models, and frameworks related to the implementation and integration of clinical interventions from 1st January 2000 to 31st December 2023. The data processing was guided by a scoping review methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. Studies were included if they were i) peer-reviewed and published between 2000 and 2023, ii) explicitly described a framework for clinical intervention implementation and integration, or iii) available in full text and published in English. We integrated different domains and constructs from the reviewed frameworks to develop a new framework for implementing and integrating mHealth interventions., Results: We identified eight eligible papers with eight frameworks composed of 102 implementation domains. None of the identified frameworks were specific to the integration of mHealth interventions in low-resource settings. Two constructs (skill impartation and intervention awareness) related to the training domain, four constructs (technical and logistical support, identifying committed staff, supervision, and redesigning) from the restructuring domain, two constructs (monetary incentives and nonmonetary incentives) from the incentivize domain, two constructs (organizational mandates and government mandates) from the mandate domain and two constructs (collaboration and routine workflows) from the integrate domain. Therefore, a new framework that outlines five main domains-train, restructure, incentivize, mandate, and integrate (TRIMI)-in relation to the integration and implementation of mHealth interventions in low-resource settings emerged., Conclusion: The TRIMI framework presents a realistic and realizable solution for the implementation and integration deficits of mHealth interventions in low-resource settings., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Chemotherapy is a common treatment for cancer, but it is associated with adverse drug reactions like oral mucositis. This condition destroys basal cells in the oral mucosal layer, causing inflammation and ulceration. This can impact the patient's physical, emotional, and psychological well-being, affecting treatment outcomes and quality of life. This study aims to determine the prevalence, severity, and risk factors of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis among adult cancer patients., Methods: The study was a cross-sectional study conducted among adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy at the cancer unit of Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in southwestern Uganda. Data was collected through patient interviews, oral examinations, and patient chart reviews., Results: Out of 268 patients, 115 (42.9%) experienced oral mucositis. Grade 2 oral mucositis was the most common (44.3%) followed by grade 1 (35.7%) and grade 3 (20.0%). Independent risk factors of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis were female gender (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-3.78; p-value = 0.005), poor oral hygiene (AOR = 3.70, 95% CI: 1.51-9.10; p-value = 0.04), and receiving chemotherapy containing an alkylating agent (AOR = 3.17, 95% CI: 1.63-6.19; p-value < 0.001)., Conclusion: The study found that two out of five chemotherapy patients developed oral mucositis, with nearly half being grade 2. The risk factors identified in our study were comparable to those reported in previous studies. Therefore, identification and assessment of cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis should be routinely done for proper and timely management., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)