Skip to main content
Download PDF

A cross-sectional study of the prevalence, barriers, and facilitators of cervical cancer screening in family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya

BMC Health Services Research volume 22, Article number: 1577 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in sub-Saharan Africa. With appropriate screening and treatment, cervical cancer can be prevented. In Kenya, cervical cancer screening is recommended for all women of reproductive age who visit a health facility. In particular, the Kenyan Ministry of Health has tasked family planning clinics and HIV clinics with implementing cervical cancer screening as part of the overall cervical cancer screening strategy. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand cervical cancer screening practices and explore clinic-level barriers and facilitators to screening in family planning clinics (FP) in Mombasa County, Kenya.

Methods

Structured interviews were conducted with randomly sampled FP clinic managers to collect information about clinic size, location, type, management support, infrastructure, screening practices, and availability of screening commodities. Data were abstracted from FP registers for a 15-month period from October 1, 2017 until December 31, 2018 to understand cervical cancer screening prevalence. Generalized linear models were used to calculate prevalence ratios (PR) and identify clinic-level correlates of reporting any cervical cancer screening.

Results

A total of 70 clinics were sampled, 54% (38) were urban and 27% (19) were public facilities. The median number of staff in a clinic was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2–6) with a median of 1 provider trained to perform screening (IQR 0–3). Fifty-four percent (38/70) of clinic managers reported that their clinics performed cervical cancer screening. Of these, only 87% (33) and 71% (27) had dependable access to speculums and acetic acid, respectively. Being a public FP clinic was associated with higher prevalence of reported screening (14/38 [37%] vs 6/32 [16%]; prevalence rate ratio [PR] 1.57, 95%CI 1.05–2.33). Clinics that reported cervical cancer screening were much more likely to have at least one provider trained to perform cervical cancer screening (84%, 32/38) compared to clinics that did not report screening (28%, 9/32; PR 3.77, 95%CI 1.82–7.83).

Conclusion

Integration of cervical cancer screening into FP clinics offers great potential to reach large numbers of reproductive-aged women. Increasing training of healthcare providers and ensuring adequate commodity supplies in FP clinics offer concrete solutions to increase screening in a largely unscreened population.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). High human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence in Africa increases the risk of cervical cancer in a substantial proportion of women [1, 2]. In Kenya, cervical cancer represents 12% of the total cancer burden, but it is the leading cause of cancer death [3]. High HIV prevalence (6.6%) among Kenyan women contributes to the high incidence of cervical cancer [4,5,6]. Importantly, cervical cancer rates do not significantly decline despite antiretroviral treatment (ART) and immune reconstitution [7, 8]. The aging population of women living with HIV will continue to face a large lifetime risk of cervical cancer [9]. Fortunately, cervical cancer is preventable with appropriate screening and treatment of pre-cancers [10,11,12,13]. The Kenyan Ministry of Health (MOH) stresses the need to strengthen capacity, streamline, and standardize screening, detection, diagnosis, and treatment of cancers [14]. However, in the most recent Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS) in 2014, only 14% of women in Kenya had ever been screened for cervical cancer [15]. Potential barriers to cervical cancer screening include challenges with infrastructure, competing health priorities, lack of education about need for screening, low health literacy, and poverty [11, 16,17,18,19,20].

Kenyan national cancer screening guidelines recommend that any woman of reproductive age who presents to a healthcare facility for routine care should be screened using resource-appropriate methods [21]. At a national level, the Kenyan MOH has tasked family planning (FP) clinics (alongside HIV clinics) with the implementation of cervical cancer screening as a component of the overall cancer screening strategy. Specific data entry fields have been added to document screening in the hard-copy FP registers (MOH 512) that are used to document FP clinic visits [22]. In Kenya, FP clinics can be free-standing clinics or may be co-located in a larger facility with other clinic types such as antenatal care and HIV care. In Mombasa County, FP commodities are provided at no cost to FP clinics by the Department of Health (DOH), regardless of whether they are public or private facilities. Public FP clinics provide FP commodities at no cost to clients, while private clinics often charge a convenience fee. According to national guidelines, health facilities including FP clinics can and should perform cervical cancer screening if they have the necessary resources and training of the staff [21]. Facilities from level 2 (dispensaries and clinics) to level 5 (county referral hospitals and large private hospitals) can perform visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) to screen for cervical cancer if they have trained personnel [23]. Papanicolaou smear is only recommended at level 4 (sub-county hospitals and medium-sized private hospitals) or level 5 facilities. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing requires an accredited lab, which is generally only available at level 5 facilities and large private laboratories.

During the last Kenya Demographic and Health Survey in 2014, 58% of married women aged 15–49 and 65% of sexually active unmarried women used any method of contraception [15]. In Mombasa County, 44% of married women aged 15–49 years used a modern method of contraception. This illustrates that FP clinics are potentially a good venue to reach a substantial proportion of women, but it remains unclear how much cervical cancer screening is taking place in this setting. A survey of FP clinics in Mombasa County was conducted to understand current cervical cancer screening practices and explore clinic-level barriers and facilitators to screening.

Methods

Data collection

A cross-sectional study was conducted in a random sample of 70 (41%) FP clinics out of 170 FP clinics operating in Mombasa County in 2018. Study staff conducted structured interviews with FP clinic managers to collect information about each clinic, including size, location (urban, not urban), type (public, private with MOH-supported FP products, other), and presence of academic or non-governmental organization (NGO) support. Managers were also asked about clinic management practices, infrastructure, and cervical cancer screening practices. In clinics that provided cervical cancer screening, managers were asked about the availability of cervical cancer screening commodities (vaginal speculums, acetic acid, cotton swabs, and a light source). To understand staff characteristics, clinic managers were asked about their own experience and education level, the number and types of staff at the clinic, and the number of providers trained to perform cervical cancer screening. Study staff then asked clinic managers to list their top three challenges with cervical cancer screening.

Data were abstracted from the MOH 512 register for the 15-month period from October 1, 2017 until December 31, 2018. This register is provided only to FP clinics for documentation of FP clients visits according to standard procedures laid out by the Kenyan Ministry of Health and the register should be located within the FP clinic setting. Digital photographs were taken of the corresponding register pages with names masked. Study staff used these images to abstract data on number of clients who had cervical cancer screening conducted, the method used, the results of screening, and referral processes. Approved screening methods that were documented included VIA, visual inspection with Lugol’s iodine [VILI], HPV testing with VILI, HPV testing (alone), and Papanicolaou smear. From prior experience working with the MOH 512 register, a substantial amount of missing data was expected. In study planning discussions with members of the Mombasa County Health Management Team and County DOHS stakeholders, there was consensus that missing information on cervical cancer screening in the registers generally indicated that these services were not performed, and analyses were conducted with this assumption. However, some clinics used a separate register for cervical cancer screening. In clinics using an alternative register, these data were also captured. Data from the photographs of FP registers or other log books were transcribed to paper case report forms, then entered manually into a REDCap database [24]. All data collection forms were examined for missing responses and addended as needed. Following data entry, study staff performed a question-by-question assessment comparing hard copy data collection forms to the digital database to identify and correct any key-in errors.

Data analysis

Characteristics of clinics, staff, and commodities were summarized using descriptive statistics as proportions or medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Generalized linear models with a log link and binomial family were used to calculate prevalence ratios (PR) and identify clinic-level correlates of reporting any cervical cancer screening. Many of the potential correlates of cervical cancer screening were mechanistically related to one another. For example, number of clinicians and providers trained in cervical cancer screening are potential steps in the causal pathway linking facility type (public versus private) to cervical cancer screening outcome. For this reason, only unadjusted analyses are presented. An additional analysis was performed to identify clinic-level correlates of cervical cancer screening in the subset of clinics that documented any cervical cancer screening during the 15-month data collection period. All analyses were conducted using Stata version 17 (College Station, Texas) [25].

Results

A total of 70 clinics were included in this study (Table 1). An additional 17 FP clinics were assessed but were not included in this survey for several reasons (Fig. 1). These included clinic closure (n = 2), clinic did not provide FP services (n = 1), clinic did not have or did not use an FP register (n = 11), clinic could not be located (n = 1), or clinic staff were unable to be interviewed (n = 2). Of the 70 clinics, 54% (38) were urban and 63% (44) were private facilities with MOH-supplied FP commodities. Thirty (43%) of clinic had non-governmental organization support and 8 (11%) had academic institution support. The median number of staff was four (IQR 2–6) with a median of one (IQR 0–3) provider trained to perform cervical cancer screening. Clinic managers reported the top three challenge with providing cervical cancer screening were lack of supplies (27%, n = 19), lack of training (24%, n = 17), and clients declining cervical cancer screening (20%, n = 14). Most clinics held regular management meetings (87%, n = 61). Seventy-seven percent (54) of clinics had complete visual privacy and 70% (55) had complete auditory privacy to perform cervical cancer screening.

Table 1 Characteristics of all family planning clinics, clinics reporting and documenting cervical cancer screening in Mombasa County, 1st October 2017 to December 31, 2018
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya assessed for eligibility between 1st October 2017 to December 31, 2018

Full size image

Of those clinics that reported any cervical cancer screening, most had dependable access to cotton swabs (92%, 35) and a light source (97%, 37) (Table 2). Dependable access to speculums (87%, 33) and acetic acid (71%, 27) were somewhat lower.

Table 2 Access to visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) commodities in family planning clinics that reported they performed cervical cancer screening in Mombasa County, Kenya, 1st October 2017 to December 31, 2018
Full size table

Among the 70 clinics, 54% (n = 38) of clinic managers reported that their clinics performed cervical cancer screening. Prevalence ratios for factors associated with cervical cancer screening reported by the clinic manager are presented in Table 3. Public facilities represented 37% (14/38) of those reporting cervical cancer screening compared to only 16% (6/32) of clinics that did not report cervical cancer screening (PR 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–2.33). There was no difference in the proportion of urban clinics among those that reported versus did not report cervical cancer screening (55%, 21/38 versus 53%, 17/32; PR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62–1.48). Non-governmental organization support was more common in clinics that reported screening (53%, 20/38) than in clinics that did not report any screening (31% 10/32; PR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97–2.27), though this difference was not statistically significant. Academic institution support did not differ between clinics that reported screening (11%, 4/38) versus those that did not report screening (13%, 4/32; PR 0.91, 95% CI 0.44–1.89). Four or more clinicians were on staff in 53% (20/38) of clinics that reported any cervical cancer screening, whereas only 22% (7/32) of clinics that did not report cervical cancer screening had four or more clinicians (PR 1.77, 95% CI 1.17–2.69). Clinics that reported cervical cancer screening were much more likely to have at least one provider trained to perform cervical cancer screening (84%, 32/38) compared to clinics not reporting cervical cancer screening (28%, 9/32; PR 3.77, 95% CI 1.82–7.83). The proportion of clinics holding management meetings was similar in clinics that reported (92%, 35/38) or did not report cervical cancer screening (81%, 26/38; PR 1.72, 95% CI 0.67–4.45).

Table 3 Correlates of cervical cancer screening reported by family planning clinic managers in Mombasa County, Kenya between October 1st 2017 to December 31, 2018
Full size table

Thirty-one percent (n = 22) of clinics documented cervical cancer screening during the 15-month period. Public clinics represented 50% (11/22) of those FP clinics that documented any cervical cancer screening compared to 17% (8/48) of clinics that did not document cervical cancer screening (PR 2.68, 95% CI 1.49–5.14; Table 4). There was minimal difference in the proportion of urban clinics among those that reported versus did not report cervical cancer screening (50%, 11/22 versus 56%, 27/48; PR 1.19, 95% CI 0.60–2.37). The presence of NGO support did not differ significantly between clinics that documented cervical cancer screening (50%, 11/22) and those clinics without documented screening (40%, 19/48; PR 1.33, 95% CI 0.67–2.65). There were no clinics with academic institution support that documented any screening, so this PR could not be calculated. Four or more clinicians were present at 50% (11/22) of clinics that documented cervical cancer screening compared to 33% (16/48) of clinics that did not document screening (PR 1.59, 95% CI 0.80–3.15). Clinics that reported cervical cancer screening were much more likely to have at least one provider trained to perform cervical cancer screening (85%, 18/22) compared to clinics not reporting cervical cancer screening (48%, 23/48; PR 3.18, 95% CI 1.20–8.43). Finally, the proportion of clinics that held management meetings did not differ between clinics that documented screening (91%, 20/22) and clinics that did not document screening (85%, 41/48; PR 1.48, 95% CI 0.41–5.27).

Table 4 Correlates of cervical cancer screening documented in family planning registers or other log books in family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya between October 1st 2017 to December 31, 2018
Full size table

Discussion

In Mombasa County, half of FP clinic managers reported that their clinics performed cervical cancer screening, but only a third of clinics documented any screening during the 15-month study period. Being a public facility and having at least one provider trained in cervical cancer screening were factors associated with both reported and documented cervical cancer screening.

Few studies have reported on integration of cervical cancer screening into FP services in Sub-Saharan Africa. A 2012 study of integration of cervical cancer screening into FP clinics in Mozambique identified several challenges including staff shortages, equipment problems, poor paper record systems, and difficulty following-up referred patients [26]. Similarly, a pilot study of the feasibility of cervical cancer screening in FP clinics in Eldoret, Kenya highlighted both reporting and documentation requirements and staffing as potential challenges [27]. The present study from Mombasa adds to this literature, emphasizing the importance of having sufficient numbers of trained staff to support integration of cervical cancer screening into FP clinics. In addition, a substantial proportion of FP clinics in Mombasa that reported that they provided cervical cancer screening also reported challenges with access to essential supplies including speculums and acetic acid.

In this survey, among those clinics that reported that they could perform cervical cancer screening, only 58% (22/38) documented any screening in a 15-month period. In the clinics that reported but did not document cervical cancer screening, it is possible that screening was being performed and not documented in a register that could be identified by research staff. However, this seems unlikely, as the research team asked about and collected data from sources other than the government-provided FP register if these were in use. An alternative possibility is that the managers in these clinics felt that they were prepared to offer cervical cancer screening, but no screening was actually taking place because of barriers such as lack of time, inadequate staffing, shortages of commodities, and clients declining screening [11, 16,17,18,19,20].

This study had important strengths. The survey included a large sample of both public and private FP clinics that captured screening practices, barriers, and facilitators that may be generalizable to other FP clinics in the region that are considering similar service integration. Combining interviews with register abstraction allowed us to identify both clinics that report offering screening and clinics that documented any cervical cancer screening during the 15-month observation period. This information allowed us to identify a potential gap between reported practices and actual performance.

There are a number of limitations to note. First, individual clients were not consistently identified with the same client identification numbers across multiple visits. As a result, it was not possible to track individual women to determine the proportion of all FP clients who received cervical cancer screening during the observation period or to evaluate the cervical cancer screening care cascade over time. Second, this study was not designed to assess FP client-level barriers to cervical cancer screening. Client-level factors like embarrassment, fear of screening, and lack of spousal support represent a distinct set of challenges that would not be overcome simply by addressing healthcare system barriers [28]. In addition, there could have been other reasons that clinics did not perform screening that were not assessed in this study. Third, this survey did not independently verify cervical cancer procedures but relied on self-report by clinic managers and documentation in the FP register. For example, clinic managers may have incorrectly reported cervical cancer screening due to social desirability bias, recall bias, and telescoping bias with temporal displacement of events. Incomplete documentation in program records is also a well-described limitation in implementation research [29, 30]. In this context, having both clinic manager report and clinic documentation allowed for triangulation, and may provide greater insight into actual practices than either measure alone. Fourth, we assess cervical cancer screening in FP clinics. Cervical cancer screening could have been conducted at other service delivery points that were not captured in this study. However, the goal was specifically to capture screening in FP clinics, as this is a delivery point that has great promise for reaching a large proportion of reproductive age women.

In conclusion, integration of cervical cancer screening into family planning clinics offers great potential to reach large numbers of reproductive-aged women. Current implementation of cervical cancer screening has not yet met the goals of the Kenyan MOH or the Mombasa County DOHS where all FP clinics should be providing some level of screening. Addressing modifiable factors including training healthcare providers, ensuring adequate staffing, and providing dependable access to screening commodities, offers hope for increased cervical cancer screening in a largely unscreened FP clinic population.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to restrictions from the Kenyatta National Hospital - University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee (KNH-UON ERC) but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. This study was conducted with approval from the Kenyatta National Hospital - University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee (KNH-UON ERC), which requires that we release data from Kenyan studies (including de-identified data) only after they have provided their written approval for additional analyses. As such, data for this study will be available from the corresponding author (Dr. McKenna C Eastment, mceast@uw.edu) upon request, with written approval for the proposed analysis from the KNH/UON ERC. Their application forms and guidelines can be accessed at https://erc.uonbi.ac.ke/. Please contact the KNH-UON ERC at principal-cae@uonbi.ac.ke.

References

  1. Denny LA, Franceschi S, de Sanjose S, Heard I, Moscicki AB, Palefsky J. Human papillomavirus, human immunodeficiency virus and immunosuppression. Vaccine. 2012;30(Suppl 5):F168–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. UNAIDS. The GAP Report. Geneva: Joint United National Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS); 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bank. TW. Table 2.17. World Development Indicators: Health risk factors and future challenges 2021 Available from: http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.17#.

  5. Marcus JL, Chao CR, Leyden WA, Xu L, Quesenberry CP Jr, Klein DB, et al. Narrowing the Gap in Life Expectancy Between HIV-Infected and HIV-Uninfected Individuals With Access to Care. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73(1):39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kenya Population-based HIV Impact Assessment (KENPHIA) Preliminary Report [Internet]: PHIA Project; [cited 2022 February 19]. Available from: https://phia.icap.columbia.edu/countries/kenya/.

  7. Dorrucci M, Suligoi B, Serraino D, Tirelli U, Rezza G, Italian HIVSS. Incidence of invasive cervical cancer in a cohort of HIV-seropositive women before and after the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001;26(4):377–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rohner E, Sengayi M, Goeieman B, Michelow P, Firnhaber C, Maskew M, et al. Cervical cancer risk and impact of Pap-based screening in HIV-positive women on antiretroviral therapy in Johannesburg, South Africa. Int J Cancer. 2017;141(3):488–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chinula L, Moses A, Gopal S. HIV-associated malignancies in sub-Saharan Africa: progress, challenges, and opportunities. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2017;12(1):89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cervical Cancer Estimated Incidence, Mortality and Prevalance Worldwide in 2012: World Health Organization; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sudenga SL, Rositch AF, Otieno WA, Smith JS. Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived risk of cervical cancer among Kenyan women: brief report. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(5):895–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Global Burden of Disease Cancer C, Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, et al. The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(4):505–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Control of cancer of the cervix uteri. A WHO meeting. Bull World Health Organ. 1986;64(4):607–18.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, Ministry of Medical Services. National Guidelines for Prevention and Management of Cervical, Breast and Prostate Cancer: Ministry of Health Division of Reproductive Health; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Health/Kenya, National AIDS Control Council/Kenya, Kenya Medical Research Institute, National Council for Population and Development/Kenya, and ICF International. Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Rockville: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Health/Kenya, National AIDS Control Council/Kenya, Kenya Medical Research Institute, National Council for Population and Development/Kenya, and ICF International; 2015.

  16. Adefuye AO, Ndip RN. Phytochemical analysis and antibacterial evaluation of the ethyl acetate extract of the stem bark of Bridelia micrantha. Pharmacogn Mag. 2013;9(33):45–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Huchko MJ, Maloba M, Nakalembe M, Cohen CR. The time has come to make cervical cancer prevention an essential part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services for HIV-positive women in low-income countries. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(Suppl 5):20282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sankaranarayanan R, Anorlu R, Sangwa-Lugoma G, Denny LA. Infrastructure requirements for human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccine. 2013;31(Suppl 5):F47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Denny L, de Sanjose S, Mutebi M, Anderson BO, Kim J, Jeronimo J, et al. Interventions to close the divide for women with breast and cervical cancer between low-income and middle-income countries and high-income countries. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):861–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31795-0. Epub 2016 Nov 1.

  20. Olson B, Gribble B, Dias J, Curryer C, Vo K, Kowal P, et al. Cervical cancer screening programs and guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;134(3):239–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ministry of Health, Kenya. Kenya National Cancer Screening Guidelines. Nairobi; 2018. Available at https://www.health.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/National-Cancer-Screening-Guidelines-2018.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2022.

  22. Division of Reproductive Health, Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation. National Family Planning Guidelines for Service Providers. 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  23. World Health Organization & Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. Primary health care systems (primasys): case study from Kenya: abridged version: World Health Organization; 2017. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341073.

  24. Paul A, Harris RT, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. StataCorp. Stata. 15th ed. College Station: Stata Corp LLC; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moon TD, Silva-Matos C, Cordoso A, Baptista AJ, Sidat M, Vermund SH. Implementation of cervical cancer screening using visual inspection with acetic acid in rural Mozambique: successes and challenges using HIV care and treatment programme investments in Zambézia Province. J Int AIDS Soc. 2012;15(2):17406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Were E, Nyaberi Z, Buziba N. Integrating cervical cancer and genital tract infection screening into mother, child health and family planning clinics in Eldoret, Kenya. Afr Health Sci. 2010;10(1):58–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lim JN, Ojo AA. Barriers to utilisation of cervical cancer screening in Sub Sahara Africa: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017;26(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12444. Epub 2016 Feb 7. PMID: 26853214.

  29. Akhu-Zaheya L, Al-Maaitah R, Bany HS. Quality of nursing documentation: Paper-based health records versus electronic-based health records. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(3–4):e578–e89.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Combs Thorsen V, Sundby J, Meguid T, Malata A. Easier said than done!: methodological challenges with conducting maternal death review research in Malawi. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute K08-CA228761. RSM received support for mentoring from K24-HD88229. The Mombasa Research site has received infrastructure support from the University of Washington / Fred Hutch Center for AIDS Research, an NIH-funded program under award number AI027757 which is supported by the following NIH Institutes and Centers: NIAID, NCI, NIMH, NIDA, NICHD, NHLBI, NIA, NIGMS, NIDDK. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Box 359909, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA

    McKenna C. Eastment & R. Scott McClelland

  2. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    George Wanje, Barbra A. Richardson, Kenneth Sherr, Kishorchandra Mandaliya & R. Scott McClelland

  3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Barbra A. Richardson

  4. Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Barbra A. Richardson

  5. Mombasa County Department of Health, Mombasa, Kenya

    Emily Mwaringa & Shem Patta

  6. Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Ruanne V. Barnabas & R. Scott McClelland

  7. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Ruanne V. Barnabas

  8. Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

    Walter Jaoko

  9. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    R. Scott McClelland

Authors
  1. McKenna C. Eastment
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Wanje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbra A. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emily Mwaringa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shem Patta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kenneth Sherr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ruanne V. Barnabas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kishorchandra Mandaliya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Walter Jaoko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. R. Scott McClelland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MCE has been the primary author on this manuscript with significant editing by RSM. Authors GW, BAR, EM, SP, KS, RB, KM, WJ, and RSM were involved in project design, study implementation, and data analysis. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to McKenna C. Eastment.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in close collaboration with the Mombasa County DOH with approval from Mombasa County. Ethical approvals were obtained from the Kenyatta National Hospital-University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee and the Human Subjects Research Committee of the University of Washington. All staff who participated in structured interviews provided verbal consent and all procedures were approved by the Kenyatta National Hospital-University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee and the Human Subjects Research Committee of the University of Washington. All methods were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations (Declarations of Helsinki).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

RSM has received research funding, paid to the University of Washington from Hologic Corporation, and has received honoraria for consulting from Lupin Pharmaceuticals. MCE, GW, BAR, EM, SP, KS, RB, KM, and WJ have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eastment, M.C., Wanje, G., Richardson, B.A. et al. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence, barriers, and facilitators of cervical cancer screening in family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 1577 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08984-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08984-2

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us