
Facilitators and Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening in Migori County, Kenya
Author(s) -
Holly Nishimura,
Nelly Yatich,
Megan J. Huchko
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of global oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.002
H-Index - 17
ISSN - 2378-9506
DOI - 10.1200/jgo.2016.003970
Subject(s) - medicine , focus group , cervical cancer , family medicine , cancer screening , cervical screening , cervical cancer screening , nonprobability sampling , nursing , cancer , gynecology , environmental health , population , marketing , business
77 Background: Cervical cancer, a disease that is largely preventable through organized screening programs, still impacts over 500,000 women every year. Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest global incidence and mortality, largely due to lack of screening coverage. Low-cost and simple-to-implement screening technologies can potentially impact the rates of cervical cancer, if they are acceptable and scalable. As part of a trial to evaluate implementation strategies for cervical cancer prevention in western Kenya, we sought to identify the barriers and facilitators of screening, as well as opinions on a strategy employing self-collection of specimens for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.Methods: Providers and female community members were recruited for focus groups using purposive sampling. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) with community members (n=24) and one FGD with providers (n=12) and key stakeholders were held in Migori County, Kenya, using structured guides to assess and current cervical cancer knowledge, screening practices, barriers to screening and potential strategies to facilitate screening access and uptake, including self-collected HPV testing.Results: Participants in both groups assessed the education around HPV, cervical cancer, and screening as very low in the community, and identified this lack of education as the main barrier to screening. Community members reported fear of pain and embarrassment as significant barriers to a screening pelvic exam. They also reported that lack of knowledge and discomfort among providers were significant barriers. Having undergone screening themselves or talking to someone with experience increased willingness to screen. Providers reported workload and lack of supplies and trained staff as significant barriers. Most participants in both FGDs felt that self-collection would help address barriers. Women expressed willingness to self-collect if given adequate instructions and if knowledgeable counselors were present to discuss results.Conclusion: Cervical cancer prevention strategies employing effective educational components and self-collected HPV testing could address many of the identified barriers to screening. Key findings from analysis of the focus group transcripts will be used to inform the implementation of community health campaigns.AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No COIs from the authors.