An Implementation Evaluation of the Smartphone-Enhanced Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (SEVIA) Program for Cervical Cancer Prevention in Urban and Rural Tanzania

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for cervical cancer screening (CCS) in lower-resource settings; however, quality varies widely, and it is difficult to maintain a well-trained cadre of providers. The Smartphone-Enhanced Visual Inspection with Acetic acid (SEVIA) program was designed to offer secure sharing of cervical images and real-time supportive supervision to health care workers, in order to improve the quality and accuracy of visual assessment of the cervix for treatment. The purpose of this evaluation was to document early learnings from patients, providers, and higher-level program stakeholders, on barriers and enablers to program implementation. METHODS: From 9 September to 8 December 2016, observational activities and open-ended interviews were conducted with image reviewers (n = 5), providers (n = 17), community mobilizers (n = 14), patients (n = 21), supervisors (n = 4) and implementation partners (n = 5) involved with SEVIA. Sixty-six interviews were conducted at 14 facilities, in all five of the program regions Results SEVIA was found to be a highly regarded tool for the enhancement of CCS services in Northern Tanzania. Acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, and coverage of the intervention were highly recognized. It appeared to be an effective means of improving good clinical practice among providers and fit seamlessly into existing roles and processes. Barriers to implementation included network connectivity issues, and community misconceptions and the adoption of CCS more generally. CONCLUSIONS: SEVIA is a practical and feasible mobile health intervention and tool that is easily integrated into the National CCS program to enhance the quality of care.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.