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

Publication Date: 23 December 2022

Citation: 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

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.