Cargando…

An audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common malignancy affecting South African women aged 15–44 years, with a higher prevalence among women living with HIV (WLWH). Despite recommendations for a screening target of 70%, the reported rate of cervical cancer screening in South Africa is 19.3%. OBJEC...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bolon, Jeffrey, Samson, Amy, Irwin, Natalie, Murray, Lyle, Mbodi, Langanani, Stacey, Sarah, Aikman, Nicholas, Moonsamy, Louell, Zamparini, Jarrod
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AOSIS 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10244942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37293604
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhivmed.v24i1.1490
_version_ 1785054758701105152
author Bolon, Jeffrey
Samson, Amy
Irwin, Natalie
Murray, Lyle
Mbodi, Langanani
Stacey, Sarah
Aikman, Nicholas
Moonsamy, Louell
Zamparini, Jarrod
author_facet Bolon, Jeffrey
Samson, Amy
Irwin, Natalie
Murray, Lyle
Mbodi, Langanani
Stacey, Sarah
Aikman, Nicholas
Moonsamy, Louell
Zamparini, Jarrod
author_sort Bolon, Jeffrey
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common malignancy affecting South African women aged 15–44 years, with a higher prevalence among women living with HIV (WLWH). Despite recommendations for a screening target of 70%, the reported rate of cervical cancer screening in South Africa is 19.3%. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the adherence of healthcare workers to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic. METHOD: A retrospective cross-sectional record audit of women attending the Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital HIV Clinic over a 1-month period. RESULTS: Out of 403 WLWH who attended the clinic, 180 (44.7%) were screened for cervical cancer in the 3 years prior to the index consultation. Only 115 (51.6%) of those women with no record of prior screening were subsequently referred for screening. Women who had undergone screening in the previous 3 years were significantly older (47 years vs 44 years, P = 0.046) and had a longer time since diagnosis of their HIV (12 years vs 10 years, P = 0.001) compared to women who had not undergone screening. There was no significant difference in CD4 count or viral suppression between women who had and had not undergone screening. CONCLUSION: The rate of cervical cancer screening in our institution is below that recommended by the World Health Organization and the South African National Department of Health.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10244942
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher AOSIS
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102449422023-06-08 An audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic Bolon, Jeffrey Samson, Amy Irwin, Natalie Murray, Lyle Mbodi, Langanani Stacey, Sarah Aikman, Nicholas Moonsamy, Louell Zamparini, Jarrod South Afr J HIV Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common malignancy affecting South African women aged 15–44 years, with a higher prevalence among women living with HIV (WLWH). Despite recommendations for a screening target of 70%, the reported rate of cervical cancer screening in South Africa is 19.3%. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the adherence of healthcare workers to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic. METHOD: A retrospective cross-sectional record audit of women attending the Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital HIV Clinic over a 1-month period. RESULTS: Out of 403 WLWH who attended the clinic, 180 (44.7%) were screened for cervical cancer in the 3 years prior to the index consultation. Only 115 (51.6%) of those women with no record of prior screening were subsequently referred for screening. Women who had undergone screening in the previous 3 years were significantly older (47 years vs 44 years, P = 0.046) and had a longer time since diagnosis of their HIV (12 years vs 10 years, P = 0.001) compared to women who had not undergone screening. There was no significant difference in CD4 count or viral suppression between women who had and had not undergone screening. CONCLUSION: The rate of cervical cancer screening in our institution is below that recommended by the World Health Organization and the South African National Department of Health. AOSIS 2023-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10244942/ /pubmed/37293604 http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhivmed.v24i1.1490 Text en © 2023. The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee: AOSIS. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.
spellingShingle Original Research
Bolon, Jeffrey
Samson, Amy
Irwin, Natalie
Murray, Lyle
Mbodi, Langanani
Stacey, Sarah
Aikman, Nicholas
Moonsamy, Louell
Zamparini, Jarrod
An audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic
title An audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic
title_full An audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic
title_fullStr An audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic
title_full_unstemmed An audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic
title_short An audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level HIV clinic
title_sort audit of adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in a tertiary-level hiv clinic
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10244942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37293604
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhivmed.v24i1.1490
work_keys_str_mv AT bolonjeffrey anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT samsonamy anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT irwinnatalie anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT murraylyle anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT mbodilanganani anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT staceysarah anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT aikmannicholas anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT moonsamylouell anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT zamparinijarrod anauditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT bolonjeffrey auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT samsonamy auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT irwinnatalie auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT murraylyle auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT mbodilanganani auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT staceysarah auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT aikmannicholas auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT moonsamylouell auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic
AT zamparinijarrod auditofadherencetocervicalcancerscreeningguidelinesinatertiarylevelhivclinic