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.

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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03514459. Registered on April 19, 2018.

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

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.