Barriers and Facilitators to Cervical Cancer Screening in Northern Uganda: Qualitative Insights from Healthcare Workers and Administrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer (CC) is the most common cancer among Ugandan women and the leading cause of cancer mortality. Screening has proven to be a cost-effective method in reducing its burden, yet uptake among women of reproductive age remains alarmingly low, with national adherence rates under 10%. OBJECTIVE: This study explored healthcare workers' (HWs) perspectives on barriers and facilitators to screening and attitudes toward implementing human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing with self-collection. METHODS: A qualitative research design was employed. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled healthcare providers and administrators across different cadres at a referral hospital and three peripheral health centres in Northern Uganda. Interviews were analysed thematically using the Social Ecological Model. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively until thematic saturation. Reporting follows the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). RESULTS: Participants described individual and interpersonal barriers such as limited awareness, poor preventive health-seeking, fear of results, stigma, and limited male involvement. Organisational barriers included staff shortages, weak referral practices, and stock-outs of supplies, while policy constraints included limited governmental support and competing priorities. Facilitators included targeted health education, routine referrals from all service entry points, outreach screening, and donor support. Most respondents favoured scaling up of self-collected HPV testing, citing higher acceptability and feasibility for outreach, contingent on sustained supplies, laboratory capacity, and training. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-level interventions are needed to strengthen facility workflows, staff capability, community engagement, and reliable supply chains. Expanding access to self-collected HPV testing may overcome major barriers and represents a promising strategy to increase screening uptake in Uganda and similar low resource settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".