ArticleResearch square2024
Predictors of delay in the cervical cancer care cascade in Kampala, Uganda.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.