Results of a cluster randomized trial testing the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach to increase cervical cancer screening in family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya

Publication Date: 7 November 2023

Citation: Eastment MC, Wanje G, Richardson BA, Mwaringa E, Patta S, Sherr K, Barnabas RV, Mandaliya K, Jaoko W, Mcclelland RS. Results of a cluster randomized trial testing the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach to increase cervical cancer screening in family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya. Implement Sci. 2023 Nov 27;18(1):66. doi: 10.1186/s13012-023-01322-y. PMID: 38012647; PMCID: PMC10680234.

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Kenyan women. Integrating cervical cancer screening into family planning (FP) clinics is a promising strategy to improve health for reproductive-aged women. The objective of this cluster randomized trial was to test the efficacy of an implementation strategy, the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA), as a tool to increase cervical cancer screening in FP clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya.

Methods: Twenty FP clinics in Mombasa County were randomized 1:1 to SAIA versus usual procedures. SAIA has five steps: (1) cascade analysis tool to understand the cascade and identify inefficiencies, (2) sequential process flow mapping to identify bottlenecks, (3) develop and implement workflow modifications (micro-interventions) to address identified bottlenecks, (4) assess the micro-intervention in the cascade analysis tool, and (5) repeat the cycle. Prevalence ratios were calculated using Poisson regression with robust standard errors to compare the proportion of visits where women were screened for cervical cancer in SAIA clinics compared to control clinics.

Results: In the primary intent-to-treat analysis in the last quarter of the trial, 2.5% (37/1507) of visits with eligible FP clients at intervention facilities included cervical cancer screening compared to 3.7% (66/1793) in control clinics (prevalence ratio [PR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.45–1.00). When adjusted for having at least one provider trained to perform cervical cancer screening at baseline, there was no significant difference between screening in intervention clinics compared to control clinics (adjusted PR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74–1.75).

Conclusions: The primary analysis did not show an effect on cervical cancer screening. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and a healthcare worker strike likely impacted SAIA’s implementation with significant disruptions in FP care delivery during the trial. While SAIA’s data-informed decision-making and clinic-derived solutions are likely important, future work should directly study the mechanisms through which SAIA operates and the influence of contextual factors on implementation.