4.0 Article

Cervical cancer guidelines, prevention and screening strategies: experiences from Brazil and Chile

Journal

CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA
Volume 26, Issue 10, Pages 4497-4509

Publisher

ABRASCO-ASSOC BRASILEIRA POS-GRADUACAO & SAUDE COLETIVA
DOI: 10.1590/1413-812320212610.11352021

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Screening; Public policy; Health systems

Funding

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ)
  3. state of Rio de Janeiro

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chile has a well-structured program with centralized decision-making and monitoring system, while Brazil faces challenges with lack of coordination and follow-up for women with abnormal test results in cervical cancer screening. Both countries need to improve coverage and implement organized screening.
This article analyzes cervical cancer control policies and actions in Brazil and Chile, focusing on prevention and screening. We adopted a comparative approach to identify similarities and differences in guidelines and cervical cancer prevention and screening strategies between the two countries. We used the following data collection techniques: analysis of official documents and secondary data, consultations with experts, government officials and program coordinators, and literature review. The findings show that Chile has a well-structured program with centralized decision -making and a system that permits monitoring of actions. Brazil on the other hand faces ongoing issues with lack of coordination and shortcomings in the follow-up of women with abnormal test results. The following challenges to consolidating cervical cancer screening stand out in Brazil: lack of active tracking of the target population; absence of a test quality assurance system; and inadequate follow-up of women with abnormal test results. Both countries need to increase coverage and implement organized screening.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available