Background In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), human papillomavirus (HPV) and HIV create a dual burden of disease that causes significant morbidity and mortality in the form of cervical cancer (CC). Women living with HIV (WLWH) have a six-fold higher risk of developing precancerous lesions that persist and progress to CC, which is the leading cause of cancer mortality among women in Kenya. Significant support from the Go Further campaign, represented by donors such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the George W. Bush Institute, UNAIDS, Merck, and Roche, to integrate CC screening into HIV clinics represents an exceptional opportunity to scale CC impact across SSA, but only if implementation science evidence is available to inform strategy. Currently, the impact of Go Further has been undermined by fractured linkages to care and insensitive screening methods; in Kenya, less than 2% of WLWH screened have received appropriate treatment. Implementation science studies are needed to better understand and surmount barriers to integrated care in publicly funded HIV clinics. Broad objective This study seeks to explore and innovate strategies to overcome patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers to implementing CC screening and referral guidelines, link WLWH who require further diagnostic testing and/or treatment with effective and accessible care, and document services for accountability and quality improvement. In this proposal, our team will apply our extensive implementation science expertise and partnerships with Kenya Ministry of Health (MOH) to adapt and test evidence-based strategies (e.g., HPV self-testing, care navigators, and the WEMA mHealth app \[tested and scaled in Tanzania\]) that address key multi-level barriers identified through a formative, stakeholder-engaged research phase. Methodology Using the EPIS framework to guide our project, we will: Aim 1a), Explore (engage a multi-disciplinary stakeholder advisory board to co-design the intervention package and prioritize implementation strategies that align with local capacity, opportunities, and motivations; Aim 1b), Prepare (develop tools and strengthen capacity at clinics to implement the strategies; Aim 2), Implement and evaluate the package of implementation strategies via a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial in 9 clinics (assessing implementation \[provision of CC screening with HPV self-testing\] and effectiveness \[proportion of HPVpositive WLWH who receive subsequent diagnostic triage and/or treatment\] over months 0-12; and Aim 3), assess Sustainability (costs, cost-effectiveness, and transfer of delivery from study to local staff over months 13-18. Significance of the study The overall goal of this study is to employ rigorous empirical methods to adapt and test implementation strategies that expand the scope of HIV care to screen for and treat early precancerous CC lesions in a sustainable, scalable way. Through partnering with Kenya's MOH, this project will have critical institutional support and dissemination capability, and will directly inform public health practice and policy.
Age range
25 Years – 49 Years
Sex
FEMALE
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOME: Difference in proportions in cervical cancer (CC) screening uptake between the intervention implementation versus control clinics
Timeframe: 1 to 12 months
EFFECTIVENESS OUTCOME: Difference in the proportion of patients that received follow-up triage (with VIA) or treatment in the implementation intervention versus control clinics
Timeframe: 1 to 12 months