Knowledge and Perceptions about Cervical Cancer and HPV Screening in Women in Rural Areas of Ecuador: A Qualitative Research Study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer continues to be a major health problem in developing countries. Educational programs, as well as Pap and HPV screening and vaccination, are important tools to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates associated with this disease. The objective of this study is to explore the diverse knowledge and perceptions about cervical cancer and the different diagnostic tests for HPV of populations living in the rural parish “El Valle”. Method: A qualitative study was conducted through eight focus groups, which included 46 participants from mixed ethnic groups. A phenomenological analysis was performed. Results: Four topics and seven sub-topics were identified. By analyzing all the narratives, it was possible to identify that the perception of cervical cancer was focused on its severity, secondary to its infectious process and screening periodicity. However, despite the diverse knowledge, indigenous people do not relate it to the human papilloma virus; in addition, there is also certain resistance to undergo the Pap smear test, for reasons such as inaccessibility and its sampling process. Conclusions: It is necessary to develop educational programs for the prevention of cervical cancer and to implement diagnostic alternatives to reach populations with precarious accessibility, as well as women who refuse to undergo the Pap smear test.

Related collections

Most cited references 27

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

0 comments Cited 8994 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough?

Bonnie N. Kaiser, Monique M. Hennink, Vincent C. Marconi (2017)

Saturation is a core guiding principle to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet little methodological research exists on parameters that influence saturation. Our study compared two approaches to assessing saturation: code saturation and meaning saturation. We examined sample sizes needed to reach saturation in each approach, what saturation meant, and how to assess saturation. Examining 25 in-depth interviews, we found that code saturation was reached at nine interviews, whereby the range of thematic issues was identified. However, 16 to 24 interviews were needed to reach meaning saturation where we developed a richly textured understanding of issues. Thus, code saturation may indicate when researchers have "heard it all," but meaning saturation is needed to "understand it all." We used our results to develop parameters that influence saturation, which may be used to estimate sample sizes for qualitative research proposals or to document in publications the grounds on which saturation was achieved.

0 comments Cited 757 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research

Monique M. Hennink, Bonnie N. Kaiser, Mary Beth Weber (2019)

Saturation is commonly used to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet there is little guidance on what influences saturation. We aimed to assess saturation and identify parameters to estimate sample sizes for focus group studies in advance of data collection. We used two approaches to assess saturation in data from 10 focus group discussions. Four focus groups were sufficient to identify a range of new issues (code saturation), but more groups were needed to fully understand these issues (meaning saturation). Group stratification influenced meaning saturation, whereby one focus group per stratum was needed to identify issues; two groups per stratum provided a more comprehensive understanding of issues, but more groups per stratum provided little additional benefit. We identify six parameters influencing saturation in focus group data: study purpose, type of codes, group stratification, number of groups per stratum, and type and degree of saturation.