Cervical cancer screening and treatment are neglected in low- and middle-income countries

Main Category: Cervical Cancer / HPV Vaccine
Also Included In: Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 13 Aug 2013 - 14:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Cervical cancer screening and treatment are neglected in low- and middle-income countries

While there have been substantial improvements in mortality rates and an increase in access to reproductive health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the global health community is neglecting prevention, screening, and treatment for cervical cancer in LMICs. These are the conclusions of a new article in PLOS Medicine this week by Ruby Singhrao and colleagues from the University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.

Using a framework including equity and socio-economic, gender, public health, and health services dimensions, the authors propose four arguments for why cervical cancer screening and treatment should be included as part of the "post-2015 development agenda," for improving reproductive and maternal health outcomes. They argue that the burden of cervical cancer falls on women of reproductive age and that cervical cancer is associated with reduced reproductive capacity. Furthermore, cervical cancer screening and treatment can be integrated into other health services and recent evidence demonstrates that HPV vaccination can protect girls from pre-cancerous lesions.

"For cervical cancer, we fortunately now have a wide range of feasible, affordable, and effective prevention options, which make dramatic global reductions in cervical cancer incidence a realistic goal in our lifetime", conclude the authors.

While there have been substantial improvements in mortality rates and an increase in access to reproductive health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the global health community is neglecting prevention, screening, and treatment for cervical cancer in LMICs. These are the conclusions of a new article in PLOS Medicine this week by Ruby Singhrao and colleagues from the University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.

Using a framework including equity and socio-economic, gender, public health, and health services dimensions, the authors propose four arguments for why cervical cancer screening and treatment should be included as part of the "post-2015 development agenda," for improving reproductive and maternal health outcomes. They argue that the burden of cervical cancer falls on women of reproductive age and that cervical cancer is associated with reduced reproductive capacity. Furthermore, cervical cancer screening and treatment can be integrated into other health services and recent evidence demonstrates that HPV vaccination can protect girls from pre-cancerous lesions.

"For cervical cancer, we fortunately now have a wide range of feasible, affordable, and effective prevention options, which make dramatic global reductions in cervical cancer incidence a realistic goal in our lifetime", conclude the authors.

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our cervical cancer / hpv vaccine section for the latest news on this subject.

GY declared that he is a former Senior Editor of PLOS Medicine and current Freelance Editor, but he played no role in editorial decisions about this essay. GY also declared that the Evidence to Policy initiative has received support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has funded trials of integrated reproductive health services.

Reproductive and Maternal Health in the Post 2015 Era: Cervical Cancer Must Be a Priority

PLoS Med 10(8): e1001499. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001499

Singhrao R, Huchko M, Yamey G

PLOS Medicine

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Medicine, PLOS. "Cervical cancer screening and treatment are neglected in low- and middle-income countries." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 13 Aug. 2013. Web.
14 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Cervical cancer screening and treatment are neglected in low- and middle-income countries'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

View the original article here

Hospital screening tool for suicide risk among self-harmers should be ditched, UK

Main Category: Mental Health
Also Included In: Psychology / Psychiatry;  Medical Devices / Diagnostics
Article Date: 30 Jul 2013 - 0:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Hospital screening tool for suicide risk among self-harmers should be ditched, UK

A screening tool used in general hospitals to detect suicide risk among patients who have self harmed should be ditched, concludes a study published online in Emergency Medicine Journal.

The technique (SADPERSONS Scale) fails to pick up most of those who require admission to a psychiatric unit, community psychiatric aftercare, or to determine those at risk of self harming again, say the researchers.

The SADPERSONS Scale was developed in the USA in 1983 as a means of assessing suicide risk among patients who had self harmed. It is based on 10 major risk factors, but has changed little since it was first devised, say the researchers.

National guidance in England stipulates that all patients who go to hospital after an episode of self harm should be given a full psychosocial assessment. But current pressures in hospitals to meet waiting time targets, combined with a reduction in the availability of mental health services, mean that emergency care staff are increasingly minded to use rating scales to find out which patients can be discharged without a full psychosocial assessment, say the researchers.

They therefore assessed SADPERSONS scores that had been recorded for 126 patients consecutively admitted to one emergency medicine department in a major general hospital in Oxford during the summer of 2011, to see how accurate it was at predicting how these patients were subsequently managed and treated.

This included admission to a psychiatric unit, a proxy for psychosocial assessment; the provision of community psychiatric aftercare; and bouts of repeated self harm in the following six months.

Self harm was defined as any act of poisoning or injury, irrespective of its purpose. Most of the patients (102; 81%) had taken an overdose; around one in 10 (11%) had cut themselves; and the remaining 10 patients (8%) had inflicted other forms of injury on themselves.

Admission to a psychiatric unit was required in five cases (4%) and community psychiatric aftercare in just over half (55%; 70). One in four patients (24.6%) self harmed again at least once.

The SADPERSONS Scale only picked up 2% of those requiring admission to a psychiatric unit, around 6% of those needing community psychiatric aftercare, and just over 6.5% of those likely to self harm again.

The authors point out that for the purposes of suicide prevention, any technique designed to spot potential suicide risk must have a low rate of false negative results - in other words, it must be accurate and not miss most of those at risk of killing themselves.

While the small numbers of patients in this study don't allow any conclusions to be drawn about the Scale's usefulness in predicting suicide risk, the scores did not pick up very accurately those most at risk of further self harm, which is particularly associated with suicide risk, say the study authors.

Twenty three out of 31 of the episodes of self harm occurred within the first three months of the first visit to emergency care. But only two of these patients had high scores on the SADPERSONS Scale; the rest had low to moderate scores, suggesting they were not at high risk.

"The results clearly show that the SADPERSONS Scale has a very limited role, if any, to play in the assessment of patients presenting to the emergency department following an episode of self harm," write the authors.

"Indeed, arguably, our results show that reliance on the scale for determining who should receive a psychosocial assessment or otherwise using it for prediction is not only misleading, it could be dangerous," they add.

The use of rating scales has become increasingly widespread in response to the need to standardise practice for ever increasing numbers of patients. But these tools often overlook individual dynamics, they say.

"A greater focus on clinical judgement is needed, accompanied by the necessary education, training and supervision, if we are to more accurately fully identify and intervene with those who are at greatest risk following self harm," they conclude.

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our mental health section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

BMJ. "Hospital screening tool for suicide risk among self-harmers should be ditched, UK." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 30 Jul. 2013. Web.
30 Jul. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Hospital screening tool for suicide risk among self-harmers should be ditched, UK'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

View the original article here