Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 54 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0The International Journal of Health Planning and Management

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of the Weekend‐70 Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in Mali: A Multiple Case Study

  • Aminata Adama Ndour1
  • Sabina Abou Malham2,3
  • David‐Martin Milot3,4
  • Geneviève Baron1
  • Ibrahima Téguété5
  • Mahamane Maiga3,6,7
  • Kadidia Bokar6
7 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Community Health Sciences Université de Sherbrooke Sherbrooke Quebec Canada
  2. 2School of Nursing Université de Sherbrooke Longueuil Quebec Canada
  3. 3Interdisciplinary Center for International Health Development (CIDIS) Université de Sherbrooke Longueuil Quebec Canada
  4. 4Department of Community Health Sciences Université De Sherbrooke Longueuil Quebec Canada
  5. 5Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Gabriel Toure Teaching Hospital Université des Sciences des Techniques et des Technologies de Bamako Bamako Mali
  6. 6Center for International Cooperation in Health and Development (CCISD) Bamako Mali
  7. 7Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine Université De Sherbrooke Longueuil Quebec Canada
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Introduction: Cervical cancer (CC) represents a significant public health issue in low‐ and middle‐income countries. In Mali, the Weekend‐70 cervical cancer screening programme, initially implemented in Bamako (the capital), is gradually being rolled out in other regions. Based on the visual inspection screening method, the programme aims to reduce mortality and morbidity due to CC. This article analyzes the barriers and facilitators influencing the programme's implementation in semi‐urban and rural health centres.

Methods: Using a multiple‐case study comparing the Kayes Ndi and Konobougou health centres, we conducted 18 semi‐structured interviews. Participants were key stakeholders in the implementation of the programme and included health centre staff (healthcare professionals, matrons, midwives and managers) as well as programme users. A thematic content analysis was carried out using QDA Miner Lite.

Results: The results show that the main barriers to implementing the programme are the lack of resources (human and material), the lack of training (initial and continuous) and the limited involvement of religious groups, considered as community pillars. The main facilitators identified were the offer of free screening days, favourable collaboration (between health centre staff and with their partners), awareness‐raising and the availability of on‐site treatment.

Conclusion: This study highlights the need to consider the barriers and facilitators influencing implementation to improve the programme, particularly with a view to national scaling. Our recommendations could guide programme managers and decision‐makers in this process, as well as benefiting other sub‐Saharan African countries wishing to implement similar programmes.

Related

  1. Perceived barriers and facilitators influencing cervical and breast cancer screening among healthcare professionals in the Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana: An explanatory mixed-methods study
    Stephen Mensah Arhin, Patience Ami Kponyoh, Christopher Alatarige
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  2. Barriers, facilitators, and prioritised service-improvement suggestions across the breast and cervical cancer screening journey: a two-phase exploratory study in rural multi-ethnic northwestern China
    Chaojin Da, Yanjin Huang, Wenjuan He +9
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  3. Operationalising the Operational Guidance on Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies: A Narrative Review of Implementation Strategies, Barriers, Facilitators, and Health System Integration in Humanitarian Settings
    Mabitsela Hezekiel Mphasha, Elisa Sebina Mphasha, Rajesh Vagiri
    NutrientsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textNutritionEurope PMC
  4. Pre-implementation barriers and facilitators to implementing a physical activity guideline for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a qualitative stakeholder study
    Zi Tian, Shi Zhang, Xinli Ni +8
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  5. What are the implementation lessons from a high-volume cataract screening and surgical programme? A mixed-methods implementation evaluation in Sierra Leone
    Gabriel Osei-Anokye, Muhammad Rabiu, Lloyd Harrison-Williams +2
    BMJ OpenPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textGeneral medicineCrossref

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{ndour2026barriers,
  title = {{Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of the Weekend‐70 Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in Mali: A Multiple Case Study}},
  author = {Aminata Adama Ndour and Sabina Abou Malham and David‐Martin Milot and Geneviève Baron and Ibrahima Téguété and Mahamane Maiga and Kadidia Bokar},
  journal = {The International Journal of Health Planning and Management},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.1002/hpm.70136},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.70136},
  note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of the Weekend‐70 Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in Mali: A Multiple Case Study
AU  - Aminata Adama Ndour
AU  - Sabina Abou Malham
AU  - David‐Martin Milot
AU  - Geneviève Baron
AU  - Ibrahima Téguété
AU  - Mahamane Maiga
AU  - Kadidia Bokar
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/09
JO  - The International Journal of Health Planning and Management
DO  - 10.1002/hpm.70136
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.70136
AB  - Introduction: Cervical cancer (CC) represents a significant public health issue in low‐ and middle‐income countries. In Mali, the Weekend‐70 cervical cancer screening programme, initially implemented in Bamako (the capital), is gradually being rolled out in other regions. Based on the visual inspection screening method, the programme aims to reduce mortality and morbidity due to CC. This article analyzes the barriers and facilitators influencing the programme's implementation in semi‐urban and rural health centres.  Methods: Using a multiple‐case study comparing the Kayes Ndi and Konobougou health centres, we conducted 18 semi‐structured interviews. Participants were key stakeholders in the implementation of the programme and included health centre staff (healthcare professionals, matrons, midwives and managers) as well as programme users. A thematic content analysis was carried out using QDA Miner Lite.  Results: The results show that the main barriers to implementing the programme are the lack of resources (human and material), the lack of training (initial and continuous) and the limited involvement of religious groups, considered as community pillars. The main facilitators identified were the offer of free screening days, favourable collaboration (between health centre staff and with their partners), awareness‐raising and the availability of on‐site treatment.  Conclusion: This study highlights the need to consider the barriers and facilitators influencing implementation to improve the programme, particularly with a view to national scaling. Our recommendations could guide programme managers and decision‐makers in this process, as well as benefiting other sub‐Saharan African countries wishing to implement similar programmes.
SN  - 0749-6753
SN  - 1099-1751
ER  -