International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2009
Male partner involvement in reducing loss to follow-up after cervical cancer screening in Uganda.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mutyaba Twaha, Mirembe Florence, Sandin Sven, Weiderpass Elisabete
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of male partner involvement in reducing loss to follow-up among women in Uganda referred for colposcopy after a positive cervical cancer-screening test.
METHODS: In 2 family-planning/postnatal clinics at Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 5094 women were screened for cervical lesions. Those who screened positive were referred for colposcopy; half were allocated to the intervention group and half to the control group. In the intervention group, information about the screening findings and a request to assist their partner in attending the next examination were sent to male partners. In the control group, a standard service was provided, which did not include a letter to the male partner. Logistic regression models were applied to calculate the probability of women returning for colposcopy.
RESULTS: Of the 834 women referred, 209 (25%) did not return for colposcopy: 143/419 (34%) from the control group and 66/415 (16%) from the intervention group. Women in the intervention group were more likely to return (odds ratio 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-3.9).
CONCLUSION: Male partner involvement significantly reduced loss to follow-up among women referred for colposcopy.
METHODS: In 2 family-planning/postnatal clinics at Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 5094 women were screened for cervical lesions. Those who screened positive were referred for colposcopy; half were allocated to the intervention group and half to the control group. In the intervention group, information about the screening findings and a request to assist their partner in attending the next examination were sent to male partners. In the control group, a standard service was provided, which did not include a letter to the male partner. Logistic regression models were applied to calculate the probability of women returning for colposcopy.
RESULTS: Of the 834 women referred, 209 (25%) did not return for colposcopy: 143/419 (34%) from the control group and 66/415 (16%) from the intervention group. Women in the intervention group were more likely to return (odds ratio 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-3.9).
CONCLUSION: Male partner involvement significantly reduced loss to follow-up among women referred for colposcopy.