Dataset Information

Evaluating the Performance of Hybrid Capture 2 Test as a Primary Screening Test from Studies Conducted in Low and Middle-Income Country Settings- Special Focus India.

ABSTRACT: Among the screening tests for cervical cancer, advantages of screening with second generation molecular Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test is the high sensitivity and negative predictive value that makes it easy to implement as a cervical cancer screening policy necessitating less screening rounds. High income countries are now implementing HC2 test in their national cervical cancer screening program. Since the acceptance of any screening test depends on the sensitivity of the test, the current study was carried out to evaluate the sensitivity of HC2 test reported from Low- and Middle-income countries (LMIC) which share major burden of cervical cancer globally and to establish if HC2 test could be used as a primary screening test in India.

Materials and methods

The population based cross sectional studies from LMICs which evaluated HC2 test as a primary screening modality to diagnose Cervical intraepithelial neoplasm grade 2 and above (CIN2+) lesions were included.

Results

A total of 18 studies from LMIC involving 1,13,086 women were reviewed for sensitivity of HC2 as a primary screening test. The overall average sensitivity and specificity to diagnose CIN2+ lesions were 79.84% (95% CI-71.01,86.73) and 85.63% (95% CI- 84.37,86.92) respectively. India demonstrated an average sensitivity and specificity of 65% (95% CI 57,77) and 93% (95% CI- 92,94) respectively.

Conclusion

Results from LMIC demonstrate a comparably low sensitivity of HC2 test to diagnose CIN2+ lesions as compared to that reported from High income countries. Sensitivity of HC2 was substantially low for India. The current study discusses issues of HC2 assay and the role of untreated Reproductive tract infections as probable causes for low sensitivity of the test. This needs further research in an attempt to improve the sensitivity of the test in an era of self-sampling and low-cost HPV test on horizon to improve the coverage for cervical cancer.
.

SUBMITTER: Anand KV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8629464 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The quality of data obtained through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) is highly dependent on appropriate design and facilitation. In low-income settings steep power gradients between researcher and participants, as well as conversational norms, could reduce the ability of participants to voice personal opinions. Activity-oriented exercises have been suggested as a way overcoming these challenges, however little evidence exists - to date - on their use in low-income settings. We selected six exercises for use in Ethiopia and Nigeria and report our experiences. METHODS:The six exercises (picture sorting, associative pictures, picture ranking, decision trees, predictive story-telling and provocative statements) were used in 32 maternal and new-born care themed FGDs conducted in Amhara and Southern Nations Nationalities and People's Regions (Ethiopia) and Gombe State (Nigeria). Six facilitators and two supervisors who used these exercises were interviewed about their experiences. FGD verbatim transcripts and interview notes were analysed to explore methodological effectiveness and respondents' experience. All data were coded in NVIVO using a deductive coding frame. RESULTS:Facilitators and participants described the methods as 'fun' and 'enjoyable'. The exercises yielded more in-depth and complete information than 'normal' FGDs, but facilitator's probing skills and overall FGD group dynamics proved crucial in this success. Explaining and conducting the exercises increased FGD length. Data richness, participant reaction and understanding, and ease of facilitation varied by study site, exercise, and participant group. Overall, the exercises worked better in Nigeria than in Ethiopia. The provocative statement exercise was most difficult for participants to understand, the decision-tree most difficult to facilitate and the picture exercises most enjoyable. The story telling exercise took relatively little time, was well understood, yielded rich data and reduced social desirability bias. DISCUSSION:The majority of the exercises proved successful tools in yielding richer and less biased information from FGDs and were experienced as fun and engaging. Tailoring of the exercises, as well as thorough training and selection of the facilitators, were pivotal in this success. The difference in the two countries shows that adequate piloting and adaptation is crucial, and that some exercises may not be adaptable to all settings.

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:IntroductionSubstance use disorder (SUD) and problematic substance use are global public health concerns with significant multifaceted implications for physical health and psychosocial well-being. The impact of SUD extends beyond the individual to their family while imposing financial and social burdens on the community. Though family-centred interventions have shown promise in addressing SUD, their implementation and impact in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain underexplored.Methods and analysisPer Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review protocol, a systematic search strategy was employed across OVID Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science-Core Collection, Global Health and CINAHL from 22 February 2024 to 26 February 2024, to identify relevant studies focused on family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC, devoid of publication time and language constraints. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved through discussion or third-party reviews. The extracted data charted in a structured form will be visualised by diagrams or tables, focusing on the feasibility and impact of family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC. For qualitative studies, the findings will be synthesised and presented in thematic clusters, and for studies that report quantitative outcomes, specific health, including SUD and psychosocial, outcomes will be synthesised, aligning with the Population, Concept and Context framework.Ethics and disseminationThese data on substance use, psychosocial outcomes and perspectives of individuals with SUD and their families will be presented in narrative format, highlighting patterns and identifying research gaps. This review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on family-centred interventions for improving substance use and/or psychosocial outcomes in individuals with SUD in LMIC and seeks to inform future policy and practice. Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review, and modifications to the review protocol will be disclosed. Findings will be disseminated through conference proceedings and peer-reviewed publication.

Project description:ImportanceMost of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects.ObjectiveTo assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older.ExposuresThree screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.ResultsAmong 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%.Conclusions and relevanceThis study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To develop effective and sustainable simulation training programs in low-resource settings, it is critical that facilitators are thoroughly trained in debriefing, a critical component of simulation learning. However, large knowledge gaps exist regarding the best way to train and evaluate debrief facilitators in low-resource settings. METHODS:Using a mixed methods approach, this study explored the feasibility of evaluating the debriefing skills of nurse mentors in Bihar, India. Videos of obstetric and neonatal post-simulation debriefs were assessed using two known tools: the Center for Advanced Pediatric and Perinatal Education (CAPE) tool and Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH). Video data was used to evaluate interrater reliability and changes in debriefing performance over time. Additionally, twenty semi-structured interviews with nurse mentors explored perceived barriers and enablers of debriefing in Bihar. RESULTS:A total of 73 debriefing videos, averaging 18?min each, were analyzed by two raters. The CAPE tool demonstrated higher interrater reliability than the DASH; 13 of 16 CAPE indicators and two of six DASH indicators were judged reliable (ICC >?0.6 or kappa >?0.40). All indicators remained stable or improved over time. The number of 'instructors questions,' the amount of 'trainee responses,' and the ability to 'organize the debrief' improved significantly over time (p?<?0.01, p?<?0.01, p?=?0.04). Barriers included fear of making mistakes, time constraints, and technical challenges. Enablers included creating a safe learning environment, using contextually appropriate debriefing strategies, and team building. Overall, nurse mentors believed that debriefing was a vital aspect of simulation-based training. CONCLUSION:Simulation debriefing and evaluation was feasible among nurse mentors in Bihar. Results demonstrated that the CAPE demonstrated higher interrater reliability than the DASH and that nurse mentors were able to maintain or improve their debriefing skills overtime. Further, debriefing was considered to be critical to the success of the simulation training. However, fear of making mistakes and logistical challenges must be addressed to maximize learning. Teamwork, adaptability, and building a safe learning environment enhanced the quality enhanced the quality of simulation-based training, which could ultimately help to improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes in Bihar.

Project description:BackgroundEpidemics of infectious disease occur frequently in low-income and humanitarian settings and pose a serious threat to populations. However, relatively little is known about responses to these epidemics. Robust evaluations can generate evidence on response efforts and inform future improvements. This systematic review aimed to (i) identify epidemics reported in low-income and crisis settings, (ii) determine the frequency with which evaluations of responses to these epidemics were conducted, (iii) describe the main typologies of evaluations undertaken and (iv) identify key gaps and strengths of recent evaluation practice.MethodsReported epidemics were extracted from the following sources: World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News (WHO DON), UNICEF Cholera platform, Reliefweb, PROMED and Global Incidence Map. A systematic review for evaluation reports was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Web of Science, WPRIM, Reliefweb, PDQ Evidence and CINAHL Plus databases, complemented by grey literature searches using Google and Google Scholar. Evaluation records were quality-scored and linked to epidemics based on time and place. The time period for the review was 2010-2019.ResultsA total of 429 epidemics were identified, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. A total of 15,424 potential evaluations records were screened, 699 assessed for eligibility and 132 included for narrative synthesis. Only one tenth of epidemics had a corresponding response evaluation. Overall, there was wide variability in the quality, content as well as in the disease coverage of evaluation reports.ConclusionThe current state of evaluations of responses to these epidemics reveals large gaps in coverage and quality and bears important implications for health equity and accountability to affected populations. The limited availability of epidemic response evaluations prevents improvements to future public health response. The diversity of emphasis and methods of available evaluations limits comparison across responses and time. In order to improve future response and save lives, there is a pressing need to develop a standardized and practical approach as well as governance arrangements to ensure the systematic conduct of epidemic response evaluations in low-income and crisis settings.

Project description:BackgroundIn low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), accurate measures of the elements of quality care provided by a health worker through family planning services (also known as process quality) are required to ensure family's contraceptives needs are being met. There are many tools used to assess family planning process quality of care (QoC) but no one standardized method. Those measuring QoC in LMICs should select an appropriate tool based the program context and financial/logistical parameters, but they require data on how well each tool measures routine clinical care. We aim to synthesize the literature on validity/comparability of family planning process QoC measurement tools through a quantitative systematic review with no meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched six literature databases for studies that compared quality measurements from different tools using quantitative statistics such as sensitivity/specificity, kappa statistic or absolute difference. We extracted the comparative measure along with other relevant study information, organized by quality indicator domain (e.g. counseling and privacy), and then classified the measure by low, medium, and high agreement.ResultsWe screened 8172 articles and identified eight for analysis. Studies comparing quality measurements from simulated clients, direct observation, client exit interview, provider knowledge quizzes, and medical record review were included. These eight studies were heterogenous in their methods and the measurements compared. There was insufficient data to estimate overall summary measures of validity for the tools. Client exit interviews compared to direct observation or simulated client protocols had the most data and they were a poor proxy of the actual quality care received for many measurements.ConclusionTo measure QoC consistently and accurately in LMICs, standardized tools and measures are needed along with an established method of combining them for a comprehensive picture of quality care. Data on how different tools proxy quality client care will inform these guidelines. Despite the small number of studies found during the review, we described important differences on how tools measure quality of care.