Health care provider's experience and perspective of cervical cancer screening in Singapore: A qualitative study

BackgroundIn Singapore, the current cervical cancer screening (CCS) coverage rate of 48% falls below the national target of 70%. Health care providers (HCPs) play a critical role in promoting CCS uptake. However, there is limited understanding of the perspectives of HCPs regarding CCS. Hence, we aimed to understand the challenges encountered by HCPs delivering CCS in different care settings in the Singapore health system. We also aimed to explore perspectives on newer features of CCS such as self-sampling and HPV genotyping.MethodsPhysicians, nurses, program administrators and laboratory technicians involved with CCS were invited for a one-on-one semi-structured interview conducted over Zoom between May to August 2021. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsEighteen HCPs from 12 institutions were interviewed. Most participants were women (61.1%) and worked in public health institutions (72.2%). For factors influencing CCS, nine key themes were identified and organized into four categories: (1) patient factors, (2) HCP factors, (3) health system factors and (4) health promotion factors. Key themes commonly highlighted by study participants were related to patients' preferences and acceptance for screening, the processes of delivering CCS, the national priority for cervical cancer and the effectiveness of existing health promotion efforts. Five key themes were identified for CCS innovations. Self-sampling was viewed favorably to increase CCS uptake, while primary HPV screening with HPV partial genotyping had higher sensitivities to detect pre-cancers and cancers compared to cytology. Extended HPV genotyping beyond HPV16/18 could play an important role in CCS with increasing HPV vaccination coverage, as well as in the management of persistent HPV infection.ConclusionIn Singapore, HCPs face multiple challenges for CCS in practice. Insights from this study are directly relevant to, and useful for developing policies around national CCS programs and treatment guidelines

Protocol for the economic evaluation of COVID-19 pandemic response policies

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051503BMJ Open119e05150

ADHERENCE TO INSULIN IN SINGAPOREAN PEDIATRIC TYPE 1 DIABETES PATIENTS AND ITS IMPACT ON GLYCEMIC CONTROL AND HEALTH-CARE UTILIZATION

Objective: Optimizing glycemic control is challenging with insulin non-adherence. This study aimed to characterize the prevalence of non-adherence among Singaporean pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and investigate its associated outcomes. Methods: Singaporean patients with T1DM aged ≤18 years old with ≥1 year of insulin prescription between 2012 and 2016 were included in this retrospective, single-center longitudinal study. Patients on insulin pumps were excluded from the study. Non-adherence was defined as medication possession ratio (MPR) <100%. Glycemic control was defined using mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) within the study period. Health-care utilization was defined as the number of outpatients, inpatient, and emergency visits. The t-test, Chi-square test, logistic regression, and Poisson regression were used to analyze means, proportions, factors associated with non-adherence, and association of non-adherence and health-care utilization, respectively. Sensitivity analyses were performed for MPR thresholds of 80% and 95%. Results: A total of 206 patients were included in this study. Non-adherent patients were older, had a longer duration of diabetes since diagnosis and shorter duration of follow-up. Gender, race, financial class, and number of concurrent medications were comparable between groups. The prevalence of non-adherence was 34.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.9–40.7%). Non-adherent patients had a higher average HbA1c (non-adherent: 9.6% [2.1] vs. adherent: 8.6% [1.3], p<0.001). Non-adherence was not associated with health-care utilization. Patients with >5 years of diabetes were more likely to be non-adherent. Conclusion: Non-adherence defined as MPR <100% is associated with poorer glycemic control. Further interventions may focus on patients with >5 years of diabetes to improve their adherence to insulin therapy

Avoiding Trouble Ahead: Lessons Learned and Suggestions for Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Vaccines

10.1007/s40258-021-00661-5APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY194463-47