Aaron B. Caughey
Aaron B. Caughey
Institution: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
Email:
1 week ago
Kazuyoshi Aoyama,
Kazuyoshi Aoyama
Institution: Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Email:
Joel G. Ray
Joel G. Ray
Institution: Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Email:
1 week ago
Charles A. Nelson
Charles A. Nelson
Institution: Laboratories of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Email:
1 week ago
Yahya Abdi Ziyad,
Yahya Abdi Ziyad
Institution: School of Medicine College of Health and Medical Sciences Haramaya University Harar Ethiopia haramaya.edu.et
Email:
Elias Jemal,
Elias Jemal
Institution: School of Medicine College of Health and Medical Sciences Haramaya University Harar Ethiopia haramaya.edu.et
Email:
Merga Dheresa,
Merga Dheresa
Institution: School of Nursing and Midwifery College of Health and Medical Sciences Haramaya University Harar Ethiopia haramaya.edu.et
Email:
Ahmedin Aliyi Usso,
Ahmedin Aliyi Usso
Institution: School of Nursing and Midwifery College of Health and Medical Sciences Haramaya University Harar Ethiopia haramaya.edu.et
Email:
Hassen Abdi Adem,
Hassen Abdi Adem
Institution: School of Public Health College of Health and Medical Sciences Haramaya University Harar Ethiopia haramaya.edu.et
Email:
Aboma Motuma,
Aboma Motuma
Institution: School of Nursing and Midwifery College of Health and Medical Sciences Haramaya University Harar Ethiopia haramaya.edu.et
Email:
Mohammednur Abdo Komicha,
Mohammednur Abdo Komicha
Institution: Department of Nursing Hiwot Fana Comprehensive University Hospital Haramaya University Harar Ethiopia haramaya.edu.et
Email:
Addis Eyeberu,
Addis Eyeberu
Institution: School of Nursing and Midwifery College of Health and Medical Sciences Haramaya University Harar Ethiopia haramaya.edu.et
Email:
Sherif Abdi Yuya
Sherif Abdi Yuya
Institution: Department of Anesthesia College of Medical and Health Sciences Dire Dawa University Dire Dawa Ethiopia ddu.edu.et
Email:
Background. Early screening for cervical cancer is a key life‐saving intervention in reducing maternal mortality and morbidity. Despite the high burden of cervical cancer, the coverage of cervical cancer screening is low in developing countries, including Ethiopia. There is a paucity of informatio...
More
Background. Early screening for cervical cancer is a key life‐saving intervention in reducing maternal mortality and morbidity. Despite the high burden of cervical cancer, the coverage of cervical cancer screening is low in developing countries, including Ethiopia. There is a paucity of information on the utilization of cervical cancer screening among female health professionals in eastern Ethiopia. This study aimedto assess the determinants of cervical cancer screening among female health professionals in Harar town, eastern Ethiopia. Method. An institution‐based cross‐sectional study was conducted among 232 female health professionals in Harar town from September 01 to 30, 2022. Data were entered using EpiData version 3.1 and analyzed using SPSS version 27.0. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify significant factors for the level of cervical cancer screening. An adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval was used to report the strength of association and statistical significance declared at p value 0.05. Results. The prevalence of cervical cancer screening among female health professionals was 16.8% (95% CI: 11%, 22%). Higher education level (AOR = 4.28, 95% CI: 1.68, 10.90), use of contraceptives (AOR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.17, 6.23), training on cervical cancer screening (AOR = 2.53, 95% CI: 1.05, 6.08), good knowledge about cervical cancer screening (AOR = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.44, 7.91), and positive attitude toward cervical cancer screening (AOR = 5.31, 95% CI: 2.04, 13.83) were independent factors that increased the utilization of cervical cancer screening. Conclusion. One in every six female health professionals was screened for cervical cancer. Education level, contraceptive use, cervical cancer screening training, cervical cancer screening knowledge, and attitude toward cervical cancer screening were the determinants of cervical cancer screening utilization among female health professionals. Improving the health professionals’ knowledge and attitude toward cervical cancer screening through upgrading their education level and training on cervical cancer screening would be essential to improving the level of cervical cancer screening.
Less
1 week ago
Karen Bräutigam,
Karen Bräutigam
Institution:
Email:
Stefanie Meier,
Stefanie Meier
Institution:
Email:
Frank Köster,
Frank Köster
Institution:
Email:
Achim Rody,
Achim Rody
Institution:
Email:
Ralf Hilfrich
Ralf Hilfrich
Institution:
Email:
Objective: The objective of the study is to validate a new human papillomavirus (HPV) L1 high‐risk specific serological assay in a case‐control study.Methods: Serum samples of 138 patients (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1, 2, and 3 and cervical cancer), 21 vaccinees, and 246 female co...
More
Objective: The objective of the study is to validate a new human papillomavirus (HPV) L1 high‐risk specific serological assay in a case‐control study.Methods: Serum samples of 138 patients (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1, 2, and 3 and cervical cancer), 21 vaccinees, and 246 female controls were tested for the presence of HPV L1 high‐risk specific antibodies.Results: HPV L1 high‐risk antibodies were detected in 100% of the CIN1 and 2, 86.6% of the CIN3 and 82.4% of the cervical cancer cases, 100% of the vaccinees, and 3.9% of the female controls. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated with 0.91 for controls versus CIN2+, 0.923 for controls versus CIN1+, and 0.968 for controls versus CIN1/2.Conclusion: The HPV L1 high‐risk specific serological lateral flow rapid test shows promising data in the field of early detection of HPV high‐risk induced cervical cancer and its precursor lesions. This easy‐to‐use, robust, and affordable approach could offer a chance to reach women in low‐ or middle‐income countries (LMICs) that could not be reached by HPV molecular testing–based cervical cancer screening programs.
Less
1 week ago
Thomas Joshua Pasvol,
Thomas Joshua Pasvol
Institution: The Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London,
Email: thomas.pasvol@nhs.net
E Anne Macgregor,
E Anne Macgregor
Institution: Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma,
Email: thomas.pasvol@nhs.net
Greta Rait,
Greta Rait
Institution: The Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London,
Email: thomas.pasvol@nhs.net
Laura Horsfall
Laura Horsfall
Institution: The Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London,
Email: thomas.pasvol@nhs.net
Background Over the last 20 years, new contraceptive methods became available and incentives to increase contraceptive uptake were introduced. We aimed to describe temporal trends in non-barrier contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care for the period 2000–2018.
Methods A repeated cross-sect...
More
Background Over the last 20 years, new contraceptive methods became available and incentives to increase contraceptive uptake were introduced. We aimed to describe temporal trends in non-barrier contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care for the period 2000–2018.
Methods A repeated cross-sectional study using
patient data from the IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD) database. The proportion (95% CI)
of women prescribed non-barrier contraception per year was captured.
Results A total of 2 705 638 women aged 15–49 years were included. Between 2000 and 2018, the proportion of women prescribed
combined hormonal contraception (CHC) fell from 26.2% (26.0%–26.3%) to 14.3% (14.2%–14.3%). Prescriptions for progestogen-only pills (POPs) and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) rose from 4.3% (4.3%–4.4%) to 10.8% (10.7%–10.9%) and 4.2% (4.1%–4.2%) to 6.5% (6.5%–6.6%), respectively. Comparing 2018 data for most deprived versus least deprived areas, women from the most deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed LARC (7.7% (7.5%–7.9%) vs 5.6% (5.4%–5.8%)) while women from the least deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed contraceptive pills (20.8% (21.1%–21.5%) vs 26.2% (26.5%–26.9%)). In 2009, LARC prescriptions increased irrespective of age and social deprivation in line with a pay-for-performance incentive. However, following the incentive's withdrawal in 2014, LARC prescriptions for adolescents aged 15–19
years fell from 6.8% (6.6%–7.0%) in 2013 to 5.6% (5.4%–5.8%) in 2018.
Conclusions CHC prescribing fell by 46% while POP prescribing more than doubled. The type of contraception prescribed was influenced by social deprivation. Withdrawal of a pay for-performance incentive may have adversely affected adolescent LARC uptake, highlighting the need for further intervention to target this at-risk group.
Less
2 years ago
Yvonne Kuipers,
Yvonne Kuipers
Institution: Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Healthcare,
Email: y.kuipers@napier.ac.uk
Elise van Beeck
Elise van Beeck
Institution: Edinburgh Napier University, School of Health and Social Care,
Email: y.kuipers@napier.ac.uk
Background Pregnant women have preferences about how they intend to manage labour pain. Unmet intentions can result in negative emotions and/or birth experiences.
Objective To examine the antenatal level of intention for intrapartum pain relief and the factors that might predict this intention.
...
More
Background Pregnant women have preferences about how they intend to manage labour pain. Unmet intentions can result in negative emotions and/or birth experiences.
Objective To examine the antenatal level of intention for intrapartum pain relief and the factors that might predict this intention.
Design A cross-sectional online survey-based study. Setting and participants 414 healthy pregnant women in the Netherlands, predominantly receiving antenatal care from the community-based midwife who were recruited via maternity healthcare professionals and social media platforms.
Methods The attitude towards intrapartum pain relief was measured with the Labour Pain Relief Attitude Questionnaire for pregnant women. Personality traits with the HEXACO-60 questionnaire, general psychological health with the Mental Health Inventory-5 and labour and birth anxiety with the Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale. Multiple linear regression was performed with the intention for pain relief as the dependant variable.
Results The obstetrician as birth companion (p<.001), the perception that because of the impact of pregnancy on the woman’s body, using pain relief during labour is self-evident (p<.001),
feeling convinced that pain relief contributes to self-confidence during labour (p=.023), and fear
of the forthcoming birth (p=.003) predicted women were more likely to use pain relief. The
midwife as birth companion (p=.047) and considering the partner in requesting pain relief
(p=.045) predicted women were less likely to use pain relief.
Conclusion: Understanding the reasons predicting women’s intention of pain management during
labour, provides insight in low-risk women’s supportive needs prior to labour and are worth
paying attention to during the antenatal period.
Less
2 years ago