BMC Cancer (Feb 2020)

Satisfaction with high-resolution anoscopy for anal cancer screening among men who have sex with men: a cross-sectional survey in Abuja, Nigeria

  • Rebecca G. Nowak,
  • Chinedu H. Nnaji,
  • Wuese Dauda,
  • Andrew Mitchell,
  • Oluwole Olaomi,
  • Paul Jibrin,
  • Trevor A. Crowell,
  • Stefan D. Baral,
  • Nicaise Ndembi,
  • Manhattan E. Charurat,
  • Joel M. Palefsky,
  • Søren M. Bentzen,
  • Kevin J. Cullen,
  • on behalf of the TRUST/RV368 Study Group

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-6567-3
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV are at increased risk for anal cancer. We evaluated satisfaction with first-time anal cancer screening using high resolution anoscopy (HRA) as a cross sectional survey among men who have sex with men (MSM) attending a community-engaged clinic in Abuja, Nigeria. Methods Between March and August 2017, 342 MSM underwent screening and 307 (89%) completed a satisfaction survey that evaluated 8 domains related to expectations, convenience, staff interpersonal skills, physical surroundings, technical competence, pain/discomfort, general satisfaction, and intention to re-screen if symptomatic. The 22-item questionnaire used 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For each domain, responses to specific items were averaged, aggregated, and converted to a 100-point scaled score (SS) with 25 and 75 corresponding to disagree and agree, respectively. Results Median age was 24 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 22–28), median years since anal coital debut was 7 (IQR: 4–12), and 58% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52–64%) were living with HIV. Despite respondents reporting pre-procedure anxiety (SS:73), most were comfortable with the setting and procedure and reported overall satisfaction (SS:74–76). Willingness to undergo future screening had the lowest score (SS:69) within the general satisfaction domain. The lowest scoring domains were pain/discomfort (SS:57) and agreement to re-screen if symptomatic (SS:59), which correlated with lower overall satisfaction (p 0.006) or number of anal biopsies (all p > 0.05). Conclusions Overall, HRA was satisfactory for those naïve to screening but moving forward necessitates monitoring levels of discomfort with pain scales and normalizing dialogue around clinical symptoms of anal cancer and overall anal health to sustain future screening.

Keywords