Objectives Low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of cervical cancer mortality. We aimed to identify what is currently known about barriers to cervical cancer screening among women in LMICs and propose remedial actions. Design This was a systematic review using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms in Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We also contacted medical associations and universities for grey literature and checked reference lists of eligible articles for relevant literature published in English between 2010 and 2020. We summarized the findings using a descriptive narrative based on themes identified as levels of the social ecological model. Setting We included studies conducted in LMICs published in English between 2010 and 2020. Participants We included studies that reported on barriers to cervical cancer screening among women 15 years and older, eligible for cervical cancer screening. Results Seventy-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified individual, cultural/traditional and religious, societal, health system, and structural barriers to screening. Lack of knowledge and awareness of cervical cancer in general and of screening were the most frequent individual level barriers. Cultural/traditional and religious barriers included prohibition of screening and unsupportive partners and families, while social barriers were largely driven by community misconceptions. Health system barriers included policy and programmatic factors, and structural barriers were related to geography, education and cost. Underlying reasons for these barriers included limited information about cervical cancer and screening as a preventive strategy, poorly resourced health systems that lacked policies or implemented them poorly, generalised limited access to health services, and gender norms that deprioritize the health needs of women. Conclusion A wide range of barriers to screening were identified across most LMICs. Urgent implementation of clear policies supported by health system capacity for implementation, community wide advocacy and information dissemination, strengthening of policies that support women’s health and gender equality, and targeted further research are needed to effectively address the inequitable burden of cervical cancer in LMICs.

Background HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) testing was included in the 2017 South African national HIV household survey. We describe the prevalence of HIVDR by drug class, age, sex and antiretroviral drugs (ARV) status. Methods Dried blood were spots tested for HIV, with Viral load (VL), exposure to ARVs and HIVDR testing among those HIV positive. HIVDR testing was conducted on samples with VL ≥1000 copies/ml using Next Generation Sequencing. Weighted percentages of HIVDR are reported. Results 697/1,105 (63%) of HIV positive samples were sequenced. HIVDR was detected in samples from 200 respondents (27.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.8–32.6)). Among these 130 (18.9% (95% CI 14.8–23.8)), had resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) only, 63 (7.8% (95% CI 5.6–10.9)) resistance to NNRTIs and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and 3 (0.5% (95% CI 0.1–2.1)) resistance to protease inhibitors. Sixty-five (55.7% (95% CI 42.6–67.9) of ARV-positive samples had HIVDR compared to 112 (22.8% (95% CI 17.7–28.7)), in ARV-negative samples. HIVDR was found in 75.6% (95% CI 59.2–87.3), n = 27, samples from respondents who reported ARV use but tested ARV-negative, and in 15.3% (95% CI 6.3–32.8), n = 7, respondents who reported no ARV use and tested ARV-negative. There were no significant age and sex differences in HIVDR. Conclusion 27% of virally unsuppressed respondents had HIVDR, increasing to 75% among those who had discontinued ARV. Our findings support strengthening first-line ARV regimens by including drugs with a higher resistance barrier and treatment adherence strategies, and close monitoring of HIVDR.

Background Adolescents are at increased risk of HIV infection compared to other age groups. There is an urgent need for strategic information that will inform programmes to reduce risk and vulnerability to HIV and reverse the pattern of increasing HIV infection as they transition to adulthood. This paper analysed trends and factors associated with HIV prevalence among adolescents in South Africa using the national HIV population-based household surveys conducted in 2008, 2012 and 2017. Methods All three surveys used a multistage cross-sectional design. A trend analysis was conducted to assess the differences in HIV prevalence and covariates overtime using P-trend Chi-squared statistic. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with HIV prevalence. Results Overall there was a significant increase in HIV prevalence among adolescents aged 12–19 years from 3.0% (n = 2892) in 2008 to 3.2% (n = 4829) in 2012 and 4.1% (n = 3937) in 2017 (p = 0.031). The odds of being HIV positive among adolescents aged 12–19 years was significantly higher among females [AOR = 2.24; 95% CI (1.73–2.91); p < 0.001] than males, those residing in KwaZulu-Natal province [AOR = 2.01; 95% CI (1.-3.99); p = 0.027] than Northern Cape, and those who did not attend an educational institution and were unemployed [AOR = 2.66; 95% CI (1.91–3.67); p < 0.001] compared to those attending an educational institution. The odds were significantly lower among Whites [AOR = 0.29; 95% CI (0.09–0.93); p = 0.037], Coloureds [AOR = 0.21; 95% CI (0.11–0.37); p ≤ 0.001] and Indian/Asian [AOR = 0.08; 95% CI (0.02–0.34); p = 0.001] population groups than Black Africans. Conclusion The observed increasing trend and gender disparities in HIV prevalence suggests an urgent need for age appropriate and gender specific HIV interventions tailored and targeted at identified drivers of HIV infection among adolescents.

Objectives This paper reports HIV prevalence, incidence, progress towards the UNAIDS (90-90-90) targets, and HIV drug resistance among adolescents living with HIV in South Africa. We conducted secondary analyses using data extracted from the South African national HIV prevalence surveys (2005–2017). Analyses were stratified by sex and age (10–14 and 15–19-years), presenting weighted descriptive statistics, and realised totals. Results HIV prevalence increased from 3.0% in 2012 to 3.7% in 2017, translating to 360 582 (95% CI 302 021-419 144) HIV positive adolescents in 2017. Female adolescents bear a disproportionate HIV burden of 5.6% prevalence versus 0.7% for males. HIV incidence remained relatively stable. For the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets, approximately 62.3% of adolescents knew their HIV status, 65.4% of whom were on antiretroviral therapy, and of these 78.1% on antiretroviral therapy had attained viral load suppression. There are knowledge gaps pertaining to the magnitude of perinatal infections and postnatal infections, and socio-behavioural risk factors for HIV transmission among adolescents in South Africa. There is still a need for focussed interventions targeting adolescent (1) gender disparities in HIV risk (2) screening for HIV, (3) sustained access and adherence to antiretroviral therapy and (3) retention in care to maintain viral load suppression.