Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

A Systematic Review and Quantitative Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Visual Inspection for Cervical Cancer Screening: Does Provider Type or Training Matter?
by Driscoll, Susan D., Ph.D., Florida Atlantic University, 2016, 214; 10583079
Abstract (Summary)

A global cervical cancer health disparity persists despite the demonstrated success of primary and secondary preventive strategies, such as cervical visual inspection (VI). Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer incidence and death for women in many low resource areas. The greatest risk is for those who are unable or unwilling to access screening. Barriers include healthcare personnel shortages, cost, transportation, and mistrust of healthcare providers and systems. Using community health workers (CHWs) may overcome these barriers, increase facilitators, and improve participation in screening for women in remote areas with limited access to clinical resources.

Aim: To determine whether the accuracy of VI performed by CHWs was comparable to VI by physicians or nurses and to consider the affect components of provider training had on VI accuracy.

Methods: A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of published literature reporting on VI accuracy, provider type, and training was conducted. Strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, study quality, and publication bias assessments improved rigor and bivariate linear mixed modeling (BLMM) was used to determine the affect of predictors on accuracy. Unconditional and conditional BLMMs, controlling for VI technique, provider type, community, clinical setting, HIV status, and gynecological symptoms were considered.

Results: Provider type was a significant predictor of sensitivity (p=.048) in the unconditional VI model. VI performed by CHWs was 15% more sensitive than physicians (p=.014). Provider type was not a significant predictor of accuracy in any other models. Didactic and mentored hours predicted sensitivity in both BLMMs. Quality assurance and use of a training manual predicted specificity in unconditional BLMMs, but was not significant in conditional models. Number of training days, with .5 being optimal, predicted sensitivity in both BLMMs and specificity in the unconditional model.

Conclusion: Study results suggest that community based cervical cancer screening with VI conducted by CHWs can be as, if not more, accurate than VI performed by licensed providers. Locally based screening programs could increase access to screening for women in remote areas. Collaborative partnerships in gpragmatic solidarityh between healthcare systems, CHWs, and the community could promote participation in screening resulting in decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Indexing (document details)
Advisor: Tappen, Ruth
School: Florida Atlantic University
School Location: United States -- Florida
Source: DAI-B 78/08(E), Dissertation Abstracts International
Subjects: Womens studies, Nursing, Public health
Keywords: Cancer screening, Cervical cancer, Health care disparities, Preventive health care
Publication Number: 10583079
ISBN: 978-1-369-61317-9
Copyright © 2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Policy