Related Experiment Video For cervical cancer
Updated: Jun 3, 2025

Comprehensive & Cost Effective Laboratory Monitoring of HIV/AIDS: an African Role Model
Published on: October 31, 2010
Predictors of delay in the cervical cancer care cascade in Kampala, Uganda
Megan Swanson1, Alison El Ayadi1, Miriam Nakalembe2
1University of California, San Francisco.
Background:
Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women with significant global disparities in disease burden. In lower-resource settings, where routine screening is uncommon, delays in diagnosis and treatment contribute to morbidity and mortality. Understanding care delays may inform strategies to decrease time to treatment, improving patient outcomes.
Methods:
We collected sociodemographic, reproductive health and care journey data from 268 Ugandan women newly diagnosed with cervical cancer. We explored the influence of patient, health provider, system, and disease factors on time to presentation (patient interval), diagnosis (diagnostic interval) and treatment (treatment interval) using survival analysis.
Results:
Median patient, diagnostic and treatment intervals were 74 days (IQR 26-238), 83 days (IQR 34-229), and 34 days (IQR 18-58), respectively. Patient interval was delayed by belief that symptoms would resolve (aHR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24-0.57), confusion about where to seek care (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88), and utilization of traditional care (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.96). Patient interval facilitators included perceiving symptoms as serious (aHR 2.14, 95% CI 1.43-3.19) and suspecting cancer (aHR 1.82, 95% CI 1.12-2.97). Diagnostic interval delays included symptomatic bleeding (aHR 055, 95% CI 0.35-0.85) and visiting > 2 clinics (aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97); facilitators included early-stage disease (aHR 1.41, 95% CI 1.03-1.95) and direct tertiary care presentation (aHR 2.13, 95% CI 1.20-3.79). Treatment interval delays included anticipating long waits (aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-1.02) and requiring blood transfusions (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37-1.07); no facilitators were identified.
Conclusions:
We identified potentially modifiable barriers and facilitators along the cervical cancer care cascade. Interventions targeting these factors may improve care timeliness but are unlikely to significantly improve morbidity or mortality. Expanding cervical cancer screening and vaccination are of utmost importance.
More Related Videos
05:04Author Spotlight: Evaluating Clinicians' Adoption of Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Cannulation Through Simulation Training
Published on: August 9, 2024
06:46Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
Published on: September 27, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Preventive Healthcare Services
Barriers to Effective Communication II
Cultural barriers:
Differences in values, beliefs, religion, knowledge, and tradition can significantly impact communication. Awareness of nonverbal cues is critical, especially when conversing with a patient from a different culture. What appears appropriate in one culture may be inappropriate in another.
Semantic barriers:
As a result of their tendency to use...
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Levels of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention
In primary prevention, actions taken before disease onset prevent the disease from...
Primary Healthcare Services
In 1978, international leaders convened in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, for what would be a pivotal event in global health. The Alma-Ata Declaration was the first to call...