To assess cervical cancer screening positivity rates, follow-up rescreening uptake 1 year after treatment and persistent positivity among women with initial positive screening results in Ethiopia. The study also explored reasons for loss to follow-up and preferences for reminder strategies.

Longitudinal cross-sectional study.

10 primary healthcare facilities in Oromia and southern and central Ethiopia.

From November 2022 to April 2024, 17 586 women screened for cervical cancer. Of these 768 (4.4%) had positive screening results, and 515 women treated at the primary level were included to assess follow-up rescreening uptake. An additional 139 women who did not return for follow-up were interviewed to identify reasons for non-uptake and reminder preferences.

Of the 515 women included in the analysis, 179 (34.8%, 95% CI: 30.6% to 38.8%) returned for follow-up rescreening. Among those re-screened, the persistent visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) positivity rate was 16.1% (95% CI: 11.0% to 21.7%). Factors significantly associated with follow-up rescreening uptake included age over 40 (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.5; 95% CI: 1.34 to 5.00), urban residence (AOR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.15 to 2.58), secondary or higher education (AOR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.06 to 4.12) and HIV-positive status (AOR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.27 to 4.87). Among the 139 women contacted, the main reasons for non-uptake were lack of time, forgetting appointments, visiting another facility and pregnancy. Regarding preferred reminders, 93% favoured text messages and all agreed to phone calls or home visits.

One-third of women adhered to follow-up rescreening after a positive cervical cancer screening in Ethiopia, revealing a considerable gap since those women had a three times higher chance of being VIA positive compared with the first screening. Older age, urban residence, higher education and HIV-positive status were significantly linked to follow-up rescreening uptake. Addressing barriers such as time constraints and forgotten appointments through tailored reminder strategies is essential for improving the follow-up rescreening uptake. Contextualised interventions can strengthen rescreening for finding those women at very high risk for cervical lesions and strengthen cervical cancer prevention in Ethiopia.

NCT06515301.

The study aimed to describe the ethical challenges global health programme (GHP) leaders encounter in their day-to-day work and to understand how they address these ethical challenges, as an important first step toward improving the relevance and precision of ethical guidance for GHPs.

We employed a qualitative case study approach using grounded theory data collection and analysis methods.

GHPs based at a major GHP hub in Decatur, Georgia, USA, providing a wide range of health services to more than 150 countries globally

Leaders of all 15 GHPs in the programme hub were invited to participate and 9 were available and consented to participate. Two senior leaders of the programme hub also participated in the study.

We identified 10 categories of ethical challenges encountered by GHP leaders: (1) ethical misalignment between funders and implementing partners; (2) budgets functioning as constraints on ethical decision-making; (3) the limited impact of programmes on improving host country capacity; (4) concerns about missed opportunities to benefit host country communities; (5) shortcomings in current ethics guidance (6) issues in data governance, stewardship and management; (7) navigating complex sociocultural contexts; (8) photography in the context of GHPs; (9) trustworthiness and reputational risks and (10) accountability for unintended consequences. The challenges often result in divided or conflicting loyalties for GHP leaders and uncertainty about what to do. We have characterised this form of uncertainty as ‘moral ambiguity,’ which we define as the inability to discern the best ethical way forward when there is tension or conflict among multiple stakeholder interests.

Our findings suggest that moral ambiguity is a common experience for GHP leaders and that current approaches to global health ethics fail to guide and support GHP leaders to recognise and address moral ambiguity and limit the distress it can cause. The experiences of GHP leaders offer important diagnostic insights for improving the way GHPs are imagined, financed, delivered and evaluated.