eISSN: 2449-8580
ISSN: 1734-3402
Family Medicine & Primary Care Review
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Reviewers Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Search
1/2024
vol. 26
 
Share:
Send email
Share:
Original paper

Evaluating primary care programmes: a problem-solving cycle with literature review on programme evaluation for cervical cancer screening at a community health centre, Jakarta, Indonesia

Muhammad Habiburrahman
1, 2, 3
,
Afid Brilliana Putra
1, 2

1.
Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
2.
Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
3.
Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Family Medicine & Primary Care Review 2024; 26(1): 26–38
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/fmpcr.2024.134700
Online publish date: 2024/03/15
Article file
- 05 FM&PCR 1 24 - O - Habiburrahman - 1399 - Evaluating.pdf  [1.73 MB]
Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
 
1. Chen S, Cao Z, Prettner K, et al. Estimates and Projections of the Global Economic Cost of 29 Cancers in 204 Countries and Territories From 2020 to 2050. JAMA Oncol 2023; 9(4): 465–472. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71(3): 209–249.
2. Singh D, Vignat J, Lorenzoni V, Global estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2020: a baseline analysis of the WHO Global Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative. Lancet Glob Health 2023; 11(2): e197–e206.
3. Chan CK, Aimagambetova G, Ukybassova T, et al. Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Cancer: Epidemiology, Screening, and Vaccination – Review of Current Perspectives. J Oncol 2019; 2019: 3257939, doi: 10.1155/2019/3257939.
4. Sypień P, Zielonka TM. HPV infections, related diseases, and prevention methods. Fam Med Prim Care Rev 2022; 24(1): 88–91.
5. Lott BE, Trejo MJ, Baum C, et al. Interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review using the integrated behavioral model. BMC Public Health 2020; 20(1): 654.
6. Winarto H, Habiburrahman M, Dorothea M, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices among Indonesian urban communities regarding HPV infection, cervical cancer, and HPV vaccination. PLoS ONE 2022; 17(5): e0266139.
7. Chua B, Ma V, Asjes C, et al. Barriers to and Facilitators of Cervical Cancer Screening among Women in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18(9): 4586.
8. Prusaczyk A, Żuk P, Guzek M, et al. An overview of factors influencing cancer screening uptake in primary healthcare institutions. Fam Med Prim Care Rev 2022; 24(1): 71–77.
9. Srinath A, Merode F, van, Rao SV, et al. Barriers to cervical cancer and breast cancer screening uptake in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Health Policy Plan 2023; 38(4): 509–527.
10. World Health Organization. WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO; 2021.
11. World Health Organization. New recommendations for screening and treatment to prevent cervical cancer. 2021 [cited 15.07.2023]. Available from URL: https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2021-new-recommendations-for-screening-and-treatment-to-prevent-cervical-cancer.
12. Huy NVQ, Tam LM, Tram NVQ, et al. The value of visual inspection with acetic acid and Pap smear in cervical cancer screening program in low resource settings – a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2018; 24: 18–20.
13. Catarino R, Petignat P, Dongui G, et al. Cervical cancer screening in developing countries at a crossroad: Emerging technologies and policy choices. World J Clin Oncol 2015; 6(6): 281–290.
14. Nuranna L, Aziz MF, Cornain S, et al. Cervical cancer prevention program in Jakarta, Indonesia: See and Treat model in developing country. J Gynecol Oncol 2012; 23(3): 147–152.
15. Utami TW, Nuranna L, Mahathir M, et al. Visual Inspection of Acetic Acid (VIA) as a Promising Standard for Cervical Cancer Screening. Indones J Soc Obstet Gynecol 2016; 2(4): 216–219.
16. Nuranna L, Wardany RS, Purwoto G, et al. Agreement Test of Documentation of Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (DoVIA) and Colposcopy findings as a Screening Tool for Cervical Cancer. Indones J Soc Obstet Gynecol 2020; 8(1): 61–65.
17. Purwoto G, Dianika HD, Putra A, et al. Modified Cervicography and Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid as an Alternative Screening Method for Cervical Pre-cancerous Lesions. J Cancer Prev 2017; 22(4): 254–259.
18. Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. [Profil Kesehatan Indonesia Tahun 2020]. Jakarta: Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia; 2020 (in Indonesian).
19. Badan Pusat Statistik Republik Indonesia. [Kecamatan Pancoran dalam Angka]. Jakarta; 2021 (in Indonesian).
20. Adams J, Neville S. Program Evaluation for Health Professionals: What It Is, What It Isn’t and How to Do It. Int J Qual Methods 2020; 19: 1609406920964345.
21. Kolkman MJ, Kok M, Veen A, van der. Mental model mapping as a new tool to analyse the use of information in decision-making in integrated water management. Phys Chem Earth 2005; 30(4–5): 317–332.
22. Otte-Trojel T, Bont A, de, Aspria M, et al. Developing patient portals in a fragmented healthcare system. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84(10): 835–846.
23. Kolfschoten GL, Vreede GJ, de, Briggs RO, et al. Collaboration ‘Engineerability’. Group Decis Negot 2010; 19(3): 301–321.
24. Tague NR. The Quality Toolbox. 2nd ed. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press; 2005. Available from URL: https://asq.org/quality-resources/fishbone.
25. American Society for Quality. What is problem solving? [cited 15.06.2023]. Available from URL: https://asq.org/quality-resources/problem-solving.
26. Phillips J, Simmonds L. Using fishbone analysis to investigate problems. Nurs Times 2013; 109(15): 18–20.
27. Rantung HB, Darmawansyah D, Asdar M. Analysis of the Planning Process at the Health Center Level at the Poso Regency Health Office. Int J Papier Pub Rev 2021; 2(3): 58–68.
28. Ariyanti NS, Adha MA, Sumarsono RB, et al. Strategy to Determine the Priority of Teachers’ Quality Problem Using USG (Urgency, Seriousness, Growth) Matrix. Int Res Educ J 2020; 2(2): 54–62.
29. Bakri H. The planning of community health center in Indonesia. Eur J Res Reflect Manag Sci 2018; 6(3): 12–18.
30. Tan W, Sauser BJ, Ramirez-Marquez JE. Analyzing Component Importance in Multifunction Multicapability Systems Developmental Maturity Assessment. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2011; 58(2): 275–294.
31. Tovar-Perilla NJ, Bermeo-Andrade HP, Torres-Delgado JF, et al. Methodology to support decision-making in prioritization improvement plans aimed at agricultural sector: Case study. Dyna (Medellin) 2018; 85(204): 356–363.
32. National Association of County and City Health Officials. Guide to Prioritization Techniques. NACCHO; 2021 [cited 15.06.2023]. Available from URL: https://www.naccho.org/uploads/downloadable-resources/Gudie-to-Prioritization-Techniques.pdf.
33. Respati T, Rathomi HS, eds. [Buku Ajar Ilmu Kesehatan Masyarakat]. Bandung: Pusat Penerbitan Universitas (P2U-LPM) Unisba; 2019 (in Indonesian).
34. The Six Step Problem Solving Model [cited 15.06.2023]. Available from URL: https://www.uapb.edu/sites/www/Uploads/Assessment/webinar/session%203/NewFolder/6%20Step%20Problem%20Solving%20Process.pdf.
35. Bidang Integrasi Pengolahan dan Diseminasi Statistik BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta. [DKI Jakarta Province in Figures]. Jakarta: BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta; 2021 (in Indonesian).
36. World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia. Accelerating the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem: Towards achieving 90–70–90 targets by 2030. Bhutan: WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2022.
37. Bruni L, Serrano B, Roura E, et al. Cervical cancer screening programmes and age-specific coverage estimates for 202 countries and territories worldwide: a review and synthetic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2022; 10(8): e1115–e1127.
38. Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. [PMK No. 29/2017 tentang Perubahan Atas PMK No. 34/2015 tentang Penanggulangan Kanker Payudara dan Kanker Leher Rahim]. Jakarta; 2017: 1–40. Available from URL: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/112083/permenkes-no-29-tahun-2017 (in Indonesian).
39. Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. [Pedoman Nasional Pelayanan Kesehatan Kanker Serviks]. Jakarta: Kemenkes RI; 2017: 1–59. Available from URL: http://kanker.kemkes.go.id/guidelines/backup/PNPKServiks.pdf (in Indonesian).
40. Robbers GML, Bennett LR, Spagnoletti BRM, et al. Facilitators and barriers for the delivery and uptake of cervical cancer screening in Indonesia: a scoping review. Glob Health Action 2021; 14(1): 1979280.
41. Sumarmi S, Hsu YY, Cheng YM, et al. Factors associated with the intention to undergo Pap smear testing in the rural areas of Indonesia: a health belief model. Reprod Health 2021; 18(1): 138.
42. Wahidin M, Noviani R, Hermawan S, et al. Population-based cancer registration in Indonesia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012; 13(4): 1709–1710.
43. American Society for Quality. Cause analysis tools: pareto chart. ASQ Quality Press [cited 15.06.2023]. Available from URL: http://www.asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysistools/ overview/pareto.html.
44. Picarillo AP. Introduction to quality improvement tools for the clinician. J Perinatol 2018; 38(7): 929–935.
45. Ishikawa K, Loftus JH. Introduction to quality control. 3rd ed. Tokyo: 3A Corporation; 1990.
46. Carayon P, Gurses AP. Nursing Workload and Patient Safety – A Human Factors Engineering Perspective. In: Hughes RG, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.
47. Blamey A, Mackenzie M. Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation. Evaluation 2007; 13(4): 439–455.
48. Donaghy PH, Greenhalgh C, Griffiths J, et al. The use of community problem solving in undergraduate nurse education: a literature review. Nurse Educ Today 2022; 116: 105447.
49. Siswanto. Research Implementation Research as Research Methodology to Care for Policy. Buletin Penelitian Sistem Kesehatan 2019; 22(2): 137–145.
50. Harel Z, Silver SA, McQuillan RF, et al. How to Diagnose Solutions to a Quality of Care Problem. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2016; 11(5): 901–907.
51. American Society for Quality. Fishbone diagram. ASQ Quality Press. 2005 [cited 02.03.2011]. Available from URL: http://www.asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html.
52. Hisprastin Y, Musfiroh I. Ishikawa Diagram dan Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) sebagai Metode yang Sering Digunakan dalam Manajemen Risiko Mutu di Industri. Majalah Farmasetika 2020; 6(1): 1.
53. Konduri N, Aboagye-Nyame F, Mabirizi D, et al. Digital health technologies to support access to medicines and pharmaceutical services in the achievement of sustainable development goals. Digit Health 2018; 4: 205520761877140.
54. Chang H. Evaluation Framework for Telemedicine Using the Logical Framework Approach and a Fishbone Diagram. Healthc Inform Res 2015; 21(4): 230–238.
55. Brook OR, Siewert B, Weinstein J, et al. Measuring and improving the patient experience in radiology. Abdom Radiol 2017; 42(4): 1259–1267.
56. Balanced Scorecard Institute. Cause and Effect diagram. Basic tools for process improvement [Internet]. Balanced Scorecard Institute; 2007 [cited 16.06.2023]. Available from URL: https://balancedscorecard.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/c-ediag.pdf.
57. Knop K, Mielczarek K. Using 5W-1H and 4M Methods to Analyse and Solve the Problem with the Visual Inspection Process – case study. MATEC Web Conf 2018; 183: 03006.
58. Bose KT. Application of Fishbone Analysis for Evaluating Supply Chain and Business Process – A Case Study on the ST James Hospital. Int J Supply Chain Manag 2012; 3(2): 17–24.
59. Coccia M. Problem-driven innovations in drug discovery: Co-evolution of the patterns of radical innovation with the evolution of problems. Health Policy Technol 2016; 5(2): 143–155.
60. Shi L. The Impact of Primary Care: A Focused Review. Scientifica (Cairo) 2012; 2012: 432892.
61. Fraser MW, Lombardi BM, Wu S, et al. Integrated Primary Care and Social Work: A Systematic Review. J Soc Social Work Res 2018; 9(2): 175–215.
62. Lu AD, Kaul B, Reichert J, et al. Implementation Strategies for Frontline Healthcare Professionals: People, Process Mapping, and Problem Solving. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36(2): 506–510.
63. Bence V. St. James’s Hospital and Lucas Engineering Systems Ltd – A public/private sector collaboration in BPR project B – The re-organisation of purchasing and supplies. UK: The Cranfied School of Management Working Papers Series; 1995. Available from URL: https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/2819/SWP%2020-95.PDF?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
64. Sturges RH, Kilani MI. Towards an integrated design for an assembly evaluation and reasoning system. Comput Aided Des 1992; 24(2): 67–79.
65. Castanon A, Rebolj M, Pesola F, et al. COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening in England. J Med Screen 2022; 29(3): 203–208.
66. Nonboe MH, Napolitano G, Schroll JB, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on breast and cervical cancer screening in Denmark: A register-based study. Elife 2023; 12: e81605.
67. Patterson T, Palmer K, Robinson WR. Effects of COVID-19 on Cervical Cancer Screening [A74]. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 139(1): 22S–22S.
68. Jones D, Neal RD, Duffy SRG, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the symptomatic diagnosis of cancer: the view from primary care. Lancet Oncol 2020; 21(6): 748–750.
69. Vose J. Delay in Cancer Screening and Diagnosis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Is the Cost? Oncology 2020; 34(9): 343.
70. Poli C, Graves J, Sunderland J. Computer-Aided Product Design for Economical Manufacture. J Manuf Sci Eng 1988; 1(4): 23–37.
71. Valaitis RK, Carter N, Lam A, et al. Implementation and maintenance of patient navigation programs linking primary care with community-based health and social services: a scoping literature review. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17(1): 116.
72. World Health Organization. Comprehensive cervical cancer control. A guide to essential practice. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO; 2014.
73. Olivares-Olivares SL, López-Cabrera MV. Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Disposition in Medical Students. J Biomed Educ 2014; 2014: 1–6.
74. Zhang J, Le G, Larochelle D, et al. Facts or stories? How to use social media for cervical cancer prevention: a multi-method study of the effects of sender type and content type on increased message sharing. Prev Med (Baltim.) 2019; 126: 105751.
75. Lyson HC, Le GM, Zhang J, et al. Social Media as a Tool to Promote Health Awareness: Results from an Online Cervical Cancer Prevention Study. J Cancer Educ 2019; 34(4): 819–822.
76. Mullins CD, Shaya FT, Blatt L, et al. A Qualitative Evaluation of a Citywide Community Health Partnership Program. J Natl Med Assoc 2012; 104(1–2): 53–60.
77. Spiro A, Oo SA, Marable D, et al. A Unique Model of the Community Health Worker. Fam Community Health 2012; 35(2): 147–160.
78. Yost J, Mackintosh J, Read K, et al. Promoting Awareness of Key Resources for Evidence-Informed Decision-making in Public Health: An Evaluation of a Webinar Series about Knowledge Translation Methods and Tools. Front Public Health 2016; 4: 72.
79. Fles R, Bos ACRK, Supriyati E, et al. The role of Indonesian patients’ health behaviors in delaying the diagnosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. BMC Public Health 2017; 17(1): 510.
80. O’Donovan J, O’Donovan C, Nagraj S. The role of community health workers in cervical cancer screening in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review of the literature. BMJ Glob Health 2019; 4(3): e001452.
81. Saei Ghare Naz M, Kariman N, Ebadi A, et al. Educational Interventions for Cervical Cancer Screening Behavior of Women: A Systematic Review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2018; 19(4): 875–884.
82. Schliemann D, Su TT, Paramasivam D, et al. Effectiveness of Mass and Small Media Campaigns to Improve Cancer Awareness and Screening Rates in Asia: A Systematic Review. J Glob Oncol 2019; 5: 1–20.
83. Vaughan K, Kok MC, Witter S, et al. Costs and cost-effectiveness of community health workers: evidence from a literature review. Hum Resour Health 2015; 13: 71.
Copyright: © 2024 Family Medicine & Primary Care Review. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
  
Termedia
About us Contact
Copyright notice Privacy policy Advertising policy Contact us
Quick links
Journals Books eBooks Events
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.