Search

Disproportionate cervical cancer burden falls on women in low-income countries, and there are new efforts to scale up prevention worldwide, including via "screen and treat" for detection and removal of abnormal cervical lesions. This study examines Malawian women's experiences with "screen and treat"; this is an under-explored topic in the literature, which has focused largely on knowledge about and attitudes toward screening, but not on experiences with screening. We interviewed 47 women who have been screened at least once for cervical cancer. The interview guide and analysis approach were informed by the Multi-Level Health Outcomes Framework. Women were recruited at facilities that offer "screen and treat" and asked about their experiences with screening. The average age of respondents was 40 years, and approximately half were HIV-negative. Although women were knowledgeable about the benefits of screening, they articulated many barriers including being turned away because of stock-outs of equipment, far distances to services, discomfort with male providers, and poor communication with providers. Alongside the many health education campaigns to increase awareness and demand for "screen and treat" services, the global public health community must also address implementation barriers in the resource-constrained health systems where burden is greatest. Particular attention should be paid to quality and person-centeredness of "screen and treat" services to optimize uptake and engagement in care.

BackgroundCervical cancer remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity in low- and middle-income countries, despite the availability of effective prevention approaches. "Screen and treat" (a single-visit strategy to identify and remove abnormal cervical cells) is the recommended secondary prevention approach in low-resource settings, but there has been relatively scarce robust implementation science evidence on barriers and facilitators to providing "screen and treat" from the provider perspective, or about thermocoagulation as a lesion removal technique.MethodsInformed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted interviews with ten experienced "screen and treat" providers in Malawi. We asked questions based on the CFIR Guide, used the CFIR Guide codebook for a descriptive analysis in NVivo, and added recommended modifications for studies in low-income settings.ResultsSeven CFIR constructs were identified as positively influencing implementation, and six as negatively influencing implementation. The two strong positive influences were the relative advantage of thermocoagulation versus cryotherapy (Innovation Characteristics) and respondents' knowledge and beliefs about providing "screen and treat" (Individual Characteristics). The two strong negative influences were the availability of ongoing refresher trainings to stay up-to-date on skills (Inner Setting, Implementation Climate) and insufficient resources (staffing, infrastructure, supplies) to provide "screen and treat" to all women who need it (Inner Setting, Readiness for Implementation). Weak positive factors included perceived scalability and access to knowledge/information, as well as compatibility, leadership engagement, and team characteristics, but these latter three were mixed in valence. Weak negative influences were structural characteristics and donor priorities; and mixed but weakly negative influences were relative priority and engaging clients. Cross-cutting themes included the importance of broad buy-in (including different cadres of health workers and leadership at the facility and in the government) and the opportunities and challenges of offering integrated care (screening plus other services).ConclusionsAlthough "screen and treat" is viewed as effective and important, many implementation barriers remain. Our findings suggest that implementation strategies will need to be multi-level, include a diverse set of stakeholders, and explicitly address both screening and treatment.

Disproportionate cervical cancer burden falls on women in low-income countries, and there are new efforts to scale up prevention worldwide, including via "screen and treat" for detection and removal of abnormal cervical lesions. This study examines Malawian women's experiences with "screen and treat"; this is an under-explored topic in the literature, which has focused largely on knowledge about and attitudes toward screening, but not on experiences with screening. We interviewed 47 women who have been screened at least once for cervical cancer. The interview guide and analysis approach were informed by the Multi-Level Health Outcomes Framework. Women were recruited at facilities that offer "screen and treat" and asked about their experiences with screening. The average age of respondents was 40 years, and approximately half were HIV-negative. Although women were knowledgeable about the benefits of screening, they articulated many barriers including being turned away because of stock-outs of equipment, far distances to services, discomfort with male providers, and poor communication with providers. Alongside the many health education campaigns to increase awareness and demand for "screen and treat" services, the global public health community must also address implementation barriers in the resource-constrained health systems where burden is greatest. Particular attention should be paid to quality and person-centeredness of "screen and treat" services to optimize uptake and engagement in care.

Adoption of routine cervical cancer screening in Malawi is very low, even though it has the highest cervical cancer burden in the world. We performed a multi-level assessment of Malawian women's knowledge and perceptions of cervical cancer risk and screening. Using the Multi-Level Health Outcomes Framework, we conducted interviews with 60 adult Malawian women aged 18-62 at facilities with cervical cancer screening. Eligible participants were recruited regardless of HIV status or history of screening, and asked about their experiences with cervical cancer disease and screening. Interviews were audio recorded and a theory-informed codebook was developed. Analysis focused on thematic differences across groups by age, HIV status, and screening history. Half of the sample (n = 30) had either never been screened for cervical cancer or were at the facility for their first-ever screen. Most women said that cervical cancer is dangerous, and many knew someone affected. Many women spoke about the importance of screening for prevention of cancer. Risk factors were generally well-understood, including increased risk with HIV, although this was misunderstood by some HIV-negative women to mean they were not at risk. Social networks were identified as a key determinant of screening, and gender issues were likewise highly salient. Despite high knowledge levels about cervical cancer, there remain significant challenges to improving screening, including interpersonal and system-level barriers. Future work should strengthen service delivery, target social networks and intimate partners, and develop targeted communication strategies for HIV-positive and -negative groups, especially in high-burden settings.