PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15023034

Papanicolaou screening in developing countries: an idea whose time has come.

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death among women in developing countries. Although progress is optional in all settings, Papanicolaou screening is feasible anywhere that cervical screening is appropriate and should be implemented without further delay in high-risk communities with access to curative treatment services. Successful prophylactic cervical cancer vaccines, prospects for which remain uncertain, will not eliminate requirements for cervical screening. The feasibility of human papillomavirus test analysis has not been demonstrated in low-resource developing country settings. Because past failures of cervical screening in developing countries are attributable to failures in programmatic quality rather than to technological limitations of the screening test, a shift in paradigmatic focus from technology toward quality is mandatory. Because visual screening techniques coupled with immediate ablative treatment are rendered obsolete by an embedded quality-control paradox, a moratorium should be placed on all such programs. Considerable opportunity costs, borne by the underserved, are associated with prioritizing research of novel interventions in developing countries when satisfactory interventions already exist.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Eric J Suba, Stephen S Raab, Viet/American Cervical Cancer Prevention Project. 2004. Papanicolaou screening in developing countries: an idea whose time has come.. https://doi.org/10.1309/g40x-qbwn-pv7m-k9ty

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Costs of surgeries in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical care is essential for achieving global health equity, yet low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face major gaps in access and planning, partly due to limited evidence on the costs and resource requirements of surgical interventions. Understanding these costs is vital for designing efficient and equitable health systems. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (covering MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, EconLit and grey literature) to identify studies reporting the costs of surgeries in LMICs from January 2000 to June 2023. Minor and major surgical procedures were considered, focusing on therapeutic procedures (excluding diagnostic interventions). Studies that clearly identified, quantified and costed hospital resources and services deployed in the provision of surgical care, and included at least two of the surgical production factors (ie, consumables, diagnostics, personnel, infrastructure and overhead) in the costing were included. Costs were standardised to 2023 International dollars (I$) for comparability. RESULTS: A total of 74 studies from 29 countries met the inclusion criteria, with 210 cost estimates across 65 procedure groups. Costs varied widely: from I$1.54 for a caesarean section in Tanzania to I$618 098 for paediatric cataract surgery in Zambia. Full costing studies reported higher estimates than partial costing studies. Most studies (60%) originated from upper-middle-income countries, with limited data (10%) from low-income settings. CONCLUSION: This review provides a reference list of surgical procedure costs across LMICs, highlighting considerable cost variation by procedure, specialty and country. The findings underscore the need for better-quality, standardised cost data-especially from low-income countries-to inform national surgical plans, universal health coverage benefit packages and reimbursement policies.

Developing Countries↗