A Qualitative Exploration of Barriers to Treatment Among HPV-Positive Women in a Cervical Cancer Screening Study in Western Kenya

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening through self-collected high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has increased screening uptake, particularly in low-resource settings. Improvement ultimately depends, however, on women with positive results accessing follow-up treatment. Identifying the barriers to timely treatment is needed to tailor service delivery for maximum impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted within a self-collected HPV screening trial in Migori County, Kenya. HPV-positive women were referred for no-cost cryotherapy treatment at the county hospital. Women not attending within 60 days of receiving HPV-positive results were randomly selected for in-depth interviews (IDIs). IDIs were coded and analyzed to develop an analytical framework and identify treatment barriers. RESULTS: Eighty-one women were interviewed. IDIs showed a poor understanding of HPV and cervical cancer, impacting comprehension of screening results and treatment instructions. All 81 had not undergone treatment but reported intending to in the future. Eight reported seeking treatment unsuccessfully or not qualifying, primarily due to pregnancy. Transportation costs and long distances to the hospital were the most reported barriers to treatment. Other obstacles included work, household obligations, and fear of treatment. Impacts of social influences were mixed; some women reported their husbands prevented seeking treatment, others reported their husbands provided financial or emotional support. Few women experienced peer support. CONCLUSIONS: Women faced many barriers to treatment following HPV screening in rural Kenya. Transportation barriers highlight a need for local treatment capacity or screen-and-treat approaches. Ensuring women understand their results and how to seek treatment is essential to improving cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings

Primary HPV and Molecular Cervical Cancer Screening in US Women Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Background: Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening (PHS) utilizes oncogenic human papillomavirus (oncHPV) testing as the initial cervical cancer screening method and typically, if positive, additional reflex-triage (eg, HPV16/18-genotyping, Pap testing). While US guidelines support PHS usage in the general population, PHS has been little studied in women living with HIV (WLWH). Methods: We enrolled n = 865 WLWH (323 from the Women's Interagency HIV Study [WIHS] and 542 from WIHS-affiliated colposcopy clinics). All participants underwent Pap and oncHPV testing, including HPV16/18-genotyping. WIHS WLWH who tested oncHPV[+] or had cytologic atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse (ASC-US+) underwent colposcopy, as did a random 21% of WLWH who were oncHPV[-]/Pap[-] (controls). Most participants additionally underwent p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry. Results: Mean age was 46 years, median CD4 was 592 cells/μL, 95% used antiretroviral therapy. Seventy WLWH had histologically-determined cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN-2+), of which 33 were defined as precancer (ie, [i] CIN-3+ or [ii] CIN-2 if concurrent with cytologic high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [HSILs]). PHS had 87% sensitivity (Se) for precancer, 9% positive predictive value (PPV), and a 35% colposcopy referral rate (Colpo). "PHS with reflex HPV16/18-genotyping and Pap testing"had 84% Se, 16% PPV, 30% Colpo. PHS with only HPV16/18-genotyping had 24% Colpo. "Concurrent oncHPV and Pap Testing"(Co-Testing) had 91% Se, 12% PPV, 40% Colpo. p16/Ki-67 immunochemistry had the highest PPV, 20%, but 13% specimen inadequacy. Conclusions: PHS with reflex HPV16/18-genotyping had fewer unnecessary colposcopies and (if confirmed) could be a potential alternative to Co-Testing in WLWH