Cargando…

Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India

BACKGROUND: Rates of cervical and oral cancer in India are unacceptably high. Survival from these cancers is poor, largely due to late presentation and a lack of early diagnosis and screening programmes. Mobile Health (‘mHealth’) shows promise as a means of supporting screening activity, particularl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bhatt, Shreya, Isaac, Rita, Finkel, Madelon, Evans, Jay, Grant, Liz, Paul, Biswajit, Weller, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Edinburgh University Global Health Society 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30603075
http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.020421
_version_ 1783382302096621568
author Bhatt, Shreya
Isaac, Rita
Finkel, Madelon
Evans, Jay
Grant, Liz
Paul, Biswajit
Weller, David
author_facet Bhatt, Shreya
Isaac, Rita
Finkel, Madelon
Evans, Jay
Grant, Liz
Paul, Biswajit
Weller, David
author_sort Bhatt, Shreya
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rates of cervical and oral cancer in India are unacceptably high. Survival from these cancers is poor, largely due to late presentation and a lack of early diagnosis and screening programmes. Mobile Health (‘mHealth’) shows promise as a means of supporting screening activity, particularly in rural and remote communities where the required information infrastructure is lacking. METHODS: We developed a mHealth prototype and ran training sessions in its use. We then implemented our mHealth-supported screening intervention in 3 sites serving poor, low-health-literacy communities: RUHSA (where cervical screening programmes were already established), Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) and Padhar (Madhya Pradesh). Screening was delivered by community health workers (CHWs – 10 from RUHSA, 8 from Mungeli and 7 from Padhar), supported by nurses (2 in Mungeli and Padhar, 5 in RUHSA): cervical screening was by VIA; oral cancer screening was by mouth inspection with illumination. Our evaluation comprised an analysis of uptake in response to screening and follow-up invitations, complemented by qualitative data from 8 key informant interviews and 2 focus groups. RESULTS: 8686 people were screened through the mHealth intervention – the majority (98%) for oral cancer. Positivity rates were 28% for cervical screening (of whom 37% attended for follow-up) and 5% for oral cancer screening (of whom 31% attended for follow-up). The mHealth prototype was very acceptable to CHWs, who felt it made the task of screening more reliable. A number of barriers to screening and follow-up in test-positive individuals were identified. Use of the mHealth prototype has had a positive effect on the social standing of the CHWs delivering the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth approaches can support cancer screening in poor rural communities with low levels of health literacy. However, they are not sufficient to overcome the range of social, cultural and financial barriers to screening and follow-up. Approaches which combine mHealth with extensive community education, tailored to levels of health literacy in the target population, and well-defined diagnostic and treatment pathways are the most likely to achieve a good response in these communities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6304168
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Edinburgh University Global Health Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63041682019-01-02 Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India Bhatt, Shreya Isaac, Rita Finkel, Madelon Evans, Jay Grant, Liz Paul, Biswajit Weller, David J Glob Health Articles BACKGROUND: Rates of cervical and oral cancer in India are unacceptably high. Survival from these cancers is poor, largely due to late presentation and a lack of early diagnosis and screening programmes. Mobile Health (‘mHealth’) shows promise as a means of supporting screening activity, particularly in rural and remote communities where the required information infrastructure is lacking. METHODS: We developed a mHealth prototype and ran training sessions in its use. We then implemented our mHealth-supported screening intervention in 3 sites serving poor, low-health-literacy communities: RUHSA (where cervical screening programmes were already established), Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) and Padhar (Madhya Pradesh). Screening was delivered by community health workers (CHWs – 10 from RUHSA, 8 from Mungeli and 7 from Padhar), supported by nurses (2 in Mungeli and Padhar, 5 in RUHSA): cervical screening was by VIA; oral cancer screening was by mouth inspection with illumination. Our evaluation comprised an analysis of uptake in response to screening and follow-up invitations, complemented by qualitative data from 8 key informant interviews and 2 focus groups. RESULTS: 8686 people were screened through the mHealth intervention – the majority (98%) for oral cancer. Positivity rates were 28% for cervical screening (of whom 37% attended for follow-up) and 5% for oral cancer screening (of whom 31% attended for follow-up). The mHealth prototype was very acceptable to CHWs, who felt it made the task of screening more reliable. A number of barriers to screening and follow-up in test-positive individuals were identified. Use of the mHealth prototype has had a positive effect on the social standing of the CHWs delivering the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth approaches can support cancer screening in poor rural communities with low levels of health literacy. However, they are not sufficient to overcome the range of social, cultural and financial barriers to screening and follow-up. Approaches which combine mHealth with extensive community education, tailored to levels of health literacy in the target population, and well-defined diagnostic and treatment pathways are the most likely to achieve a good response in these communities. Edinburgh University Global Health Society 2018-12 2018-12-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6304168/ /pubmed/30603075 http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.020421 Text en Copyright © 2018 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Articles
Bhatt, Shreya
Isaac, Rita
Finkel, Madelon
Evans, Jay
Grant, Liz
Paul, Biswajit
Weller, David
Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India
title Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India
title_full Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India
title_fullStr Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India
title_full_unstemmed Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India
title_short Mobile technology and cancer screening: Lessons from rural India
title_sort mobile technology and cancer screening: lessons from rural india
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30603075
http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.020421
work_keys_str_mv AT bhattshreya mobiletechnologyandcancerscreeninglessonsfromruralindia
AT isaacrita mobiletechnologyandcancerscreeninglessonsfromruralindia
AT finkelmadelon mobiletechnologyandcancerscreeninglessonsfromruralindia
AT evansjay mobiletechnologyandcancerscreeninglessonsfromruralindia
AT grantliz mobiletechnologyandcancerscreeninglessonsfromruralindia
AT paulbiswajit mobiletechnologyandcancerscreeninglessonsfromruralindia
AT wellerdavid mobiletechnologyandcancerscreeninglessonsfromruralindia