Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 7;22(1):212.
doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01800-3.

Improving intervention design to promote cervical cancer screening among hard-to-reach women: assessing beliefs and predicting individual attendance probabilities in Bogotá, Colombia

Affiliations

Improving intervention design to promote cervical cancer screening among hard-to-reach women: assessing beliefs and predicting individual attendance probabilities in Bogotá, Colombia

David Barrera Ferro et al. BMC Womens Health. .

Abstract

Background: Despite being a preventable disease, cervical cancer continues to be a public health concern, affecting mainly lower and middle-income countries. Therefore, in Bogotá a home-visit based program was instituted to increase screening uptake. However, around 40% of the visited women fail to attend their Pap smear test appointments. Using this program as a case study, this paper presents a methodology that combines machine learning methods, using routinely collected administrative data, with Champion's Health Belief Model to assess women's beliefs about cervical cancer screening. The aim is to improve the cost-effectiveness of behavioural interventions aiming to increase attendance for screening. The results presented here relate specifically to the case study, but the methodology is generic and can be applied in all low-income settings.

Methods: This is a cross-sectional study using two different datasets from the same population and a sequential modelling approach. To assess beliefs, we used a 37-item questionnaire to measure the constructs of the CHBM towards cervical cancer screening. Data were collected through a face-to-face survey (N = 1699). We examined instrument reliability using Cronbach's coefficient and performed a principal component analysis to assess construct validity. Then, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests were conducted to analyse differences on the HBM scores, among patients with different poverty levels. Next, we used data retrieved from administrative health records (N = 23,370) to fit a LASSO regression model to predict individual no-show probabilities. Finally, we used the results of the CHBM in the LASSO model to improve its accuracy.

Results: Nine components were identified accounting for 57.7% of the variability of our data. Lower income patients were found to have a lower Health motivation score (p-value < 0.001), a higher Severity score (p-value < 0.001) and a higher Barriers score (p-value < 0.001). Additionally, patients between 25 and 30 years old and with higher poverty levels are less likely to attend their appointments (O.R 0.93 (CI: 0.83-0.98) and 0.74 (CI: 0.66-0.85), respectively). We also found a relationship between the CHBM scores and the patient attendance probability. Average AUROC score for our prediction model is 0.9.

Conclusion: In the case of Bogotá, our results highlight the need to develop education campaigns to address misconceptions about the disease mortality and treatment (aiming at decreasing perceived severity), particularly among younger patients living in extreme poverty. Additionally, it is important to conduct an economic evaluation of screening options to strengthen the cervical cancer screening program (to reduce perceived barriers). More widely, our prediction approach has the potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of behavioural interventions to increase attendance for screening in developing countries where funding is limited.

Keywords: Cervical cancer screening; Hard-to-reach women; Health belief model; No-show prediction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distributions of the scores by component
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Model performance

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Heal. 2020;8:e191–203. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amin R, Kolahi AA, Jahanmehr N, Abadi AR, Sohrabi MR. Disparities in cervical cancer screening participation in Iran: a cross-sectional analysis of the 2016 nationwide STEPS survey. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09705-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhang X, Zeng Q, Cai W, Ruan W. Trends of cervical cancer at global, regional, and national level: data from the global burden of disease study 2019. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-10013-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tatari CR, Andersen B, Andersen B, Brogaard T, Badre-Esfahani SK, Badre-Esfahani SK, et al. Perceptions about cancer and barriers towards cancer screening among ethnic minority women in a deprived area in Denmark - a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09037-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gultekin M, Ramirez PT, Broutet N, Hutubessy R. World Health organization call for action to eliminate cervical cancer globally. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30:426–427. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001285. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types