ABSTRACT
Cervical cancer (CC) continues to be a significant global health issue, which in part can be attributed to disparities in access to CC screening services. This study aims to conduct a trend of CC in Kazakhstan and to compare attitudes towards the screening program between women living in urban and rural areas. In the first stage, we conducted a trend study of CC indicators in Kazakhstan using official statistics. In the second stage, a cross-sectional study was conducted using a structured questionnaire to assess adherence to screening. The trend study reveals a decline in cervical cancer mortality rates (from 7.15 to 5.93 per 100,000 female inhabitants) over the period studied, while the incidence remains stable (from 18.51 to 19.38 per 100,000 female inhabitants). Regional variations in Period Prevalence rates were observed. Significant differences were found in screening participation rates between urban n = 41 (74%) and rural n = 23 (38%) women, p < 0.001, as well as awareness of the screening program (urban: n = 15 (27%), rural: n = 35 (58%), p < 0.001). The trend study highlights a decrease in cervical cancer mortality rates over the specified period, accompanied by a consistent incidence rate. Additionally, regional disparities in period prevalence rates of cervical cancer were observed. The primary factor contributing to the low adherence of rural women to screening was found to be a lack of awareness regarding the screening program. Therefore, increasing awareness about the importance of screening is crucial for improving adherence rates among rural women in Kazakhstan.
Subject(s)
Early Detection of Cancer , Rural Population , Urban Population , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/mortality , Kazakhstan/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/psychology , Middle Aged , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Surveys and Questionnaires , Mass Screening , Prevalence , Aged , IncidenceABSTRACT
A systematic review and narrative synthesis of publications was undertaken to analyze the role of component-resolved diagnosis technology in identifying polysensitization for the provision of allergen-specific immunotherapy to patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. A search of publications was carried out in electronic databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search helped to identify 568 publications, 12 of which were included in this review. Overall, 3302 patients were enrolled. The major finding was that component-resolved diagnostics change the choice of relevant allergens for allergen-specific immunotherapy in at least 50% of cases. Sensitization to allergen components differs with age, type of disease, and overall disease duration. Patients who had both bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis were sensitized to a larger number of allergens than patients who had bronchial asthma alone.
Subject(s)
Asthma , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal , Rhinitis, Allergic , Humans , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/therapy , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/diagnosis , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/etiology , Allergens , Rhinitis, Allergic/diagnosis , Desensitization, Immunologic , Asthma/diagnosisABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with higher risk of developing infectious disease and COVID-19 is not the exception. There is a need to generate more data on clinical characteristics and risks of COVID19 patients presenting with DM. In this retrospective study we aimed to report on demographic features, clinical data, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with DM in comparison with age- and sex-matched patients without DM. METHODS: This was a retrospective study that relied on the nationwide data on all COVID-19 patients who were diagnosed from 14 March to 18 April, 2020. Overall, there were 31 cases with DM for which we randomly matched 4 patients without DM by age and sex. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients with associated DM had less beneficial outcomes and more severe disease course both at hospital admission and final diagnosis, as compared with the age and sex-matched non-DM patients. Diabetics were more predisposed to impaired breathing (29.0 % versus 4.9 % in controls), nausea/vomiting (6.5 % versus 0 % in controls) and weakness/lethargy (45.2 % versus 26.0 % in controls). Finally, 48.4 % of diabetics showed the signs of pneumonia on CT scans versus 20.3 % of non-diabetics (p = 0.001), and 32.3 % of DM patients were admitted to intensive care units as compared with just 5.7 % of non-DM patients (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: There is a need to envisage early status monitoring and supportive care in this vulnerable category of patients to enable better prognosis.
