Investigator

Anna Tisler

University Of Tartu

ATAnna Tisler
Papers(4)
Understanding the hig…Cervical cancer scree…What are the barriers…Risk of cervical canc…
Collaborators(10)
Marc BardouAnneli UuskulaDiana TăutInes BaiaJana ZodzikaJoão Firmino-MachadoKeitly MensahKerli ReintammLaura BonviciniMargarida Teixeira
Institutions(7)
University Of TartuChu Dijon BourgogneUniversitatea Babeș-B…ProChild CoLABRiga Stradiņš Univers…InsermAzienda Unità Sanitar…

Papers

Understanding the high-risk human papillomavirus prevalence and associated factors in the European country with a high incidence of cervical cancer

Abstract Background High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) is a known cause of cervical cancer (CC). Latvia has a high incidence of CC compared with the average incidence in the European Union. This study aims to fill the data gap on the HR-HPV burden in Latvia, providing information on its prevalence and associated factors. Methods The cross-sectional study was conducted from February 2021 to April 2022. Participants 25–70 years old visiting a general practitioner (general population) or those referred to a colposcopy clinic with changes in their cervical cytology (colposcopy population) collected vaginal self-sample and completed a paper-based questionnaire. Samples were analyzed with Cobas 6800 System (Roche) for HPV16, HPV18 and other HR-HPV (HPV31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68). Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were performed. The Chi-square test was used to determine for the statistical significance of differences in the proportions of the dependent variable between subgroups of the independent variable. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with positive HR-HPV status. Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. Results A total of 1274 participants provided a valid sample. The prevalence of any HR-HPV infection was 66.8% in the colposcopy group and 11.0% in the general population. Factors associated with positive HR-HPV status were marital status single/divorced/widowed (vs. married/cohabiting) [adjusted OR (aOR) 2.6; P = 0.003], higher number of lifetime sex partners [aOR 5.1 (P < 0.001) and 4.0 (P = 0.001)] for six or more and three to five partners in the general population; in the colposcopy group, the statistical significance remained only for Latvian ethnicity (vs. other) (aOR 1.8; P = 0.008) and current smoking (vs. never) (aOR 1.9; P = 0.01). Conclusion We documented a comparison to European Union HR-HPV infection burden in Latvia. Any HR-HPV positivity was significantly associated with sexual and other health behavior.

Cervical cancer screening patterns among HIV-positive women in Estonia: a population-based retrospective cohort study

Abstract Background The World Health Organisation (WHO) calls for the elimination of cervical cancer (CC) as a public health issue. To achieve elimination, efforts must be aligned and accelerated. Women living with HIV (WLWH) have excess risk for developing, and dying from, CC over the general population. Estimates of cervical cancer screening programme coverage in Eastern European countries that have experienced HIV epidemics since the early 2000’s are scarce. Method This population-based retrospective study uses a healthcare administrative database and follows cohorts of all WLWH in a ratio of 1:3 randomly matched (age, region) HIV negative women from 2009 to 2018. Annual and longitudinal (over the whole study period) coverage for cervical cancer screening (opportunistic, organised, HIV specific) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for longitudinal screening coverage predictors were estimated from 2009 to 2018. Results Among WLWH and HIV-negative women, the mean annual coverage with opportunistic screening was 61.45 and 65.59%; and organised screening was 20.4 and 28.7%, respectively (both: p  < 0.00001). 19.01% (95% CI 18.05–19.97) HIV-negative and 13.9% (95% CI 12.35–15.45) WLWH were longitudinally covered with organised cervical cancer screening. Among WLWH, the mean annual HIV-specific cervical cancer screening coverage was 49.4, and 24.3% were longitudinally covered. Longitudinal coverage with HIV-specific cervical cancer screening was inversely associated with age, hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infection (AOR 0.754, 95% CI 0.619, 0.916), not having insurance (AOR 0.331, 95% CI 0.264, 0.412), drug abuse (AOR 0.459, 95% CI 0.336, 0.618) and higher among those retained in HIV care (AOR 1.972, 95% CI 1.615, 2.410). Among HIV-negative women, longitudinal coverage with organised cervical cancer screening was inversely associated with residence in the region and higher among older women. Conclusions Our results highlight unacceptably low coverage of cervical cancer screening of WLWH in Estonia. There is need for dedicated cervical cancer screening efforts for WLWH considering the high cancer risk and rate in the study population.

What are the barriers towards cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women? A qualitative comparative analysis of stakeholder perspectives in seven European countries

Objectives The aim of this study was to map and compare stakeholders’ perceptions of barriers towards cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women in seven European countries. Design In Collaborative User Boards, stakeholders were invited to participate to identify barriers towards participation in cervical cancer screening. Setting The study is nested in the European Union-funded project CBIG-SCREEN which aims to tackle inequity in cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women ( www.cbig-screen.eu ). Data collection took place in Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Portugal and Romania. Participants Participants represented micro-level stakeholders covering representatives of users, that is, vulnerable women, meso-level stakeholders covering healthcare professionals and social workers, and macro-level stakeholders covering programme managers and decision-makers. Methods Across the seven countries, 25 meetings in Collaborative User Boards with a duration of 2 hours took place between October 2021 and June 2022. The meetings were video recorded or audio recorded, transcribed and translated into English for a qualitative framework analysis. Results 120 participants took part in the Collaborative User Boards. Context-specific barriers were related to different healthcare systems and characteristics of vulnerable populations. In Romania and Bulgaria, the lack of a continuous screening effort and lack of ways to identify eligible women were identified as barriers for all women rather than being specific for women in vulnerable situations. The participants in Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy and Portugal identified providers’ lack of cultural and social sensitivity towards vulnerable women as barriers. In all countries, vulnerable women’s fear, shame and lack of priority to preventive healthcare were identified as psychological barriers. Conclusion The study provides an overview of stakeholders’ perceived barriers towards vulnerable women’s cervical cancer screening participation in seven European countries. The organisation of healthcare systems and the maturity of screening programmes differ between countries, while vulnerable women’s psychological barriers had several similarities.

15Works
4Papers
24Collaborators
Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsHIV InfectionsPapillomavirus InfectionsEarly Detection of CancerNeoplasmsSubstance-Related Disorders