A questionnaire study on disparity of cervical cancer prevention programs in Asia-Oceania
Issued Date
2023-04-01
Resource Type
ISSN
13418076
eISSN
14470756
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85147447375
Pubmed ID
36726190
Journal Title
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Volume
49
Issue
4
Start Page
1230
End Page
1243
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research Vol.49 No.4 (2023) , 1230-1243
Suggested Citation
Tse K.Y., Ushijima K., Tan A.L., Intasorn P., Pariyar J., Chang C.L., Domingo E.J., Konar H., Kumarasamy S., Tjokroprawiro B.A., Wilailak S. A questionnaire study on disparity of cervical cancer prevention programs in Asia-Oceania. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research Vol.49 No.4 (2023) , 1230-1243. 1243. doi:10.1111/jog.15566 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/82665
Title
A questionnaire study on disparity of cervical cancer prevention programs in Asia-Oceania
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Despite the introduction of cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, the utilization pattern was not standardized. The aim of this study was to elicit the current prevention care in Asia-Oceania. Methods: An online questionnaire was circulated to different countries/cities in Asia-Oceania. The primary objective was to evaluate the coverage of HPV vaccination and cervical screening programs. The secondary objectives were to study the structures of these programs. Five case scenarios were set to understand how the respondents manage the abnormal screening results. Results: Fourteen respondents from 10 countries/cities had participated. Cervical cancer ranked the first in Myanmar and Nepal. About 10%–15% did not have national vaccination or screening program. The estimated coverage rate for vaccination and screening varied from less than 1% to 70%, which the coverage ran in parallel with the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer. All regions approved HPV vaccines, although only four provided free or subsidized programs for nonavalent vaccine. Cervical cytology remained the most common screening tool, and 20%–30% relied heavily on visual inspection using acetic acid. The screening age groups varied in different regions. From the case scenarios, it was noted that some respondents tended to offer more frequent screening tests or colposcopy than recommended by international guidelines. Conclusion: This study revealed discrepancy in the practice of cervical cancer prevention in Asia-Oceania especially access to HPV vaccines. There is an urgent need for a global collaboration to eliminate cervical cancer by public education, reforming services, and medical training.