Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28046104›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Barriers and Facilitators of Screening for Sexually Transmitted Infections in Adolescent Girls and Young Women in Mombasa, Kenya: A Qualitative Study.

Ethel Avuvika, Linnet N Masese, George Wanje, Juliet Wanyonyi, Benard Nyaribo, Grace Omoni, Anisa Baghazal, R Scott McClelland

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ethel AvuvikaUniversity of Nairobi Institute of Tropical & Infectious Diseases (UNITID), Nairobi, Kenya.
Linnet N MaseseDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4704-9154
George WanjeUniversity of Nairobi Institute of Tropical & Infectious Diseases (UNITID), Nairobi, Kenya.
Juliet WanyonyiStudent Services, Technical University of Mombasa, Mombasa, Kenya.
Benard NyariboMombasa County Department of Health, Mombasa, Kenya.
Grace OmoniSchool of Nursing Sciences, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Anisa BaghazalMombasa County Department of Health, Mombasa, Kenya.
R Scott McClellandUniversity of Nairobi Institute of Tropical & Infectious Diseases (UNITID), Nairobi, Kenya.
University of Nairobi · KETechnical University of Mombasa · KEUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

University of Washington/Fred Hutch Center for AIDS ResearchP30AI027757 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Kenneth Sherr · 1988 to 2026
$104.9M
INTERNATIONAL TRAINING GRANT IN EPIDEMIOLOGYD43TW000007 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FARQUHAR, CAREY · 1988 to 2012
$16.3M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW000007NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027757
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveYoung women bear the greatest burden of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), so it is important to identify and address barriers to STI screening in this population. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the feasibility of STI screening among adolescent girls and young women in Mombasa, Kenya.

methodsWe conducted 17 in-depth interviews (IDIs) (8 with adolescent girls and 9 with young women) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) (4 with adolescent girls and 2 with young women, total 55 participants). The audio recordings for the IDIs and FGDs were translated and transcribed into English. Transcripts were independently reviewed by two researchers, and a set of codes was designed to help analyze the data using the content analysis approach. Data content was then analyzed manually and digitally using ATLAS.ti, and consensus was reached on central and specific emergent themes discussed by the research team.

resultsAdolescent girls and young women in Mombasa, Kenya expressed willingness to participate in STI screening. A major incentive for screening was participants' desire to know their STI status, especially following perceived high-risk sexual behavior. Lack of symptoms and fear of positive test results were identified as barriers to STI screening at the individual level, while parental notification and stigmatization from parents, family members and the community were identified as barriers at the community level. Uncomfortable or embarrassing methods of specimen collection were an additional barrier. Thus, urine-based screening was felt to be the most acceptable.

conclusionKenyan adolescent girls and young women seem willing to participate in screening for STIs using urine testing. Addressing stigmatization by parents, health care workers and the community could further facilitate STI screening in this population.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchAdolescentFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansKenyaMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareSexually Transmitted DiseasesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28046104
PMCPMC5207488
OpenAlexW2568661694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.