RESUMO
Up to 56 million young and adult women of African origin suffer from Female Genital Schistosomiasis (FGS). The transmission of schistosomiasis happens through contact with schistosomiasis infested fresh water in rivers and lakes. The transmission vector is the snail that releases immature worms capable of penetrating the human skin. The worm then matures and mates in the blood vessels and deposits its eggs in tissues, causing urogenital disease. There is currently no gold standard for FGS diagnosis. Reliable diagnostics are challenging due to the lack of appropriate instruments and clinical skills. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends "screen-and-treat" cervical cancer management, by means of visual inspection of characteristic lesions on the cervix and point-of-care treatment as per the findings. FGS may be mistaken for cervical cancer or sexually transmitted diseases. Misdiagnosis may lead to the wrong treatment, increased risk of exposure to other infectious diseases (human immunodeficiency virus and human papilloma virus), infertility and stigmatisation. The necessary clinical knowledge is only available to a few experts in the world. For an appropriate diagnosis, this knowledge needs to be transferred to health professionals who have minimal or non-existing laboratory support. Co-design workshops were held with stakeholders (WHO representative, national health authority, FGS experts and researchers, gynaecologists, nurses, medical doctors, public health experts, technical experts, and members of the public) to make prototypes for the WHO Pocket Atlas for FGS, a mobile diagnostic support tool and an e-learning tool for health professionals. The dissemination targeted health facilities, including remote areas across the 51 anglophone, francophone and lusophone African countries. Outcomes were endorsed by the WHO and comprise a practical diagnostic guide for FGS in low-resource environments.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To explore possible disparities in prenatal care between refugees and South African women attending public health facilities in an urban setting in South Africa. METHODS: A cross-sectional, mixed methods study was conducted at four public health clinics providing prenatal services in Durban between January 29, 2013, and June 15, 2013. Pretested client-satisfaction questionnaires were administered to 200 women attending immunization services at the clinics whose infants were aged 6 months or younger. An additional 16 refugees participated in in-depth interviews. Finally, a maternity chart audit was conducted to compare the quality of basic prenatal care. RESULTS: Among the women enrolled, 78 (39.0%) were refugees and 122 (61.0%) were South African citizens. Dissatisfaction was reported by 23 (19.3%) of 119 citizens and 32 (43.2%) of 74 refugees (P<0.001). However, the maternity chart audit of 68 participants (31 refugees, 37 citizens) did not reveal significant disparities in the quality of prenatal care. The most recurring categories arising in the in-depth interviews were linguistic barriers and the challenges faced when using informal interpreters. CONCLUSION: There were no significant disparities in prenatal care; however, refugees unable to communicate in the local languages reported that they were not provided with relevant health information and occasionally faced restricted access to prenatal services.
