4.2 Article

Cervical cancer screening uptake in women aged between 15 and 64 years in Mozambique

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 338-343

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000459

关键词

Africa; cancer screening; population-based planning; prevalence; uterine cervical neoplasms

类别

资金

  1. Mozambican Ministry of Health
  2. WHO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in Mozambique, reflecting the high prevalence of both human papillomavirus and HIV infections. A national screening program for cervical cancer was started in 2009, using the visual inspection with acetic acid and cryotherapy, targeting women aged 30-55 years. We aimed to estimate the self-reported prevalence and determinants of cervical cancer screening uptake in Mozambique. A cross-sectional study of a representative sample of the women aged 15-64 years (n=1888) was carried out in 2014/2015 following the WHO-Stepwise Approach to Chronic Disease Risk Factor Surveillance. The prevalence of screening uptake using visual inspection with acetic acid or cervical cytology, at least once in a lifetime, was 3.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.2-4.1]; the prevalence was the lowest in the center region (1.4%) and the highest in the capital city of Maputo (11.1%). Among women aged 30-55 years, the prevalence was 3.4% (95% CI: 2.3-5.2) and the factors independently associated with a greater frequency of screening uptake were education (>= 8 schooling years vs. none: prevalence ratio=5.57, 95% CI: 1.34-23.16) and use of oral contraceptives (prevalence ratio=2.33, 95% CI: 1.05-5.15). This was the first national Mozambican survey on cervical cancer screening uptake ever carried out and it showed a very low prevalence of screening, even in the more urban and affluent areas. There is an urgent need to raise public awareness of cervical cancer screening and to increase the number of screening units and trained personnel throughout the country.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据