<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-8792</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojog.2022.1211105</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG-121398</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Attitudes and Practices Contributing to Vaginal Stenosis in Women with Cervical Cancer Following Brachytherapy at Cancer Diseases Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. A Cross Sectional Study
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Royda</surname><given-names>Matipa</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Catherine</surname><given-names>Mubita Ngoma</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sebean</surname><given-names>Mayimbo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Victoria</surname><given-names>Mwiinga Kalusopa</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Christopher</surname><given-names>Simoonga</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nasson</surname><given-names>Nathan Tembo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Michael</surname><given-names>Banda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jamia</surname><given-names>Milanzi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6"><sup>6</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff6"><addr-line>Department of Nursing Sciences, Mulungushi University, Kabwe, Zambia</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Basic and Clinical Sciences, School of Nursing Sciences, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Midwifery, Women’s and Child Health School of Nursing Sciences, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Nursing Faculty of Health Sciences, Chreso University, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff5"><addr-line>Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, UNICAF University, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>04</day><month>11</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>1202</fpage><lpage>1214</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>23,</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>23,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Background: 
  Vaginal stenosis is an important adverse effect of brachytherapy for cervicalcancer. This study
   
  aimed to determine attitudes and practices contributing to vaginal stenosis following brachytherapy at the Cancer Diseases Hospital in Lusaka—Zambia. 
  <b>Methods: </b>
  An analytical cross-sectional
   study design was employed, where 163 respondents were randomly selected after meeting inclusion criteria. A researcher-administered questionnaire was used to collect data and SPSS version 25 
  was 
  used for data analysis. 
  <b>Results: </b>
  Out of the 163 women enrolled in this study, 42.3% had developed vaginal stenosis while 57.7% did not with age range 15
   
  - 60+ years. 76% exhibited good
   
  practices to measures against vaginal stenosis while majority (93.9%) of the respondents demonstrated poor attitudes towards measures to prevent the condition
  . Women with poor practices versus good practices (
  OR = 1.07, CI =
   0.52 - 2.21, p = 0.855
  ), poor attitudes versus good attitudes (a
  OR = 1.28, CI = 0.29 - 5.71, p = 0.746
  ) and those employed versus unemployed (a
  OR = 1.76, CI = 0.73 - 4.27, p = 0.210
  ) had increased odds of vaginal stenosis. However, these increasing effects were not significant at 5% level of significance. Although length of brachytherapy showed no significant effect independently, the odds of having vaginal stenosis were over 2 times higher for women who had been on brachytherapy between 6 and 12 months compared to those on brachytherapy for less than 6 months (OR = 2.45, CI = 1.03 
  -
   5.82, p = 0.042). 
  <b>Conclusions:</b>
   Failure to practice recommended measures and poor attitudes towards therapy contributes to vaginal stenosis. Efforts should be channeled towards overcoming religious, traditional, cultural and personal impediments contributing to vaginal stenosis in women with cervical cancer receiving brachytherapy.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Attitude</kwd><kwd> Practices</kwd><kwd> Cervical Cancer</kwd><kwd> Brachytherapy</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Brachytherapy is a specific form of radiation therapy used to treat cancer. It consists of placing sealed, radioactive sources directly into or next to the tumor to be treated, either directly or by means of catheters [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref1">1</xref>]. A commonly observed side effect of pelvic radiotherapy is radiation-induced vaginal stenosis (VS), defined as abnormal tightening and shortening of the vagina due to the formation of fibrosis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref2">2</xref>]. Vaginal stenosis may occur following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy or both delivered in the definitive, adjuvant or palliative setting. Vaginal stenosis has negative impacts on patient well-being, in particular sexual dysfunction and dyspareunia and implications for limiting physical examination in the post-treatment period [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref3">3</xref>].</p><p>Multiple risk factors for the development of brachytherapy-induced vaginal stenosis include patient age, radiotherapy dose and volume of vagina treated, combination of EBRT and brachytherapy and tumour extension to the vagina [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref2">2</xref>]. Age &gt; 50 years has been associated with an increased risk of Vaginal stenosis in patients treated with pelvic and/or vaginal radiotherapy for cervix cancer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref3">3</xref>]. Pallor reaction of vaginal tissues has also been proposed as a predisposing factor for late vaginal stenosis as both have a pathophysiological basis related to mucosal thinning and dryness, atrophy, inflammation and fibrosis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref2">2</xref>].</p><p>Prevention of vaginal stenosis involves the use of penile prothesis called vaginal dilators, penetrative sex and regular reviews [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref4">4</xref>]. Consistent use of these measures can reduce chances of developing stenosis and minimize the extent in cases where it develops. Compliance with dilatation therapy has been associated with increasing vaginal comfort and control of pelvic floor muscles, and preserving overall vaginal health and sexual function. Dilator use compliance also enables adequate pelvic examinations to monitor for any recurring changes in vaginal tissue, an important element of cancer surveillance.</p><p>Regardless of the reported benefits of vaginal dilation therapy, the low level of compliance of women has remained a problem [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref5">5</xref>]. Further, studies have shown that women experience undesirable emotions while using the dilator, including embarrassment, anxiety, and fear; they also anticipate pain, loss of modesty, and experience a recollection of bad memories ranging from painful cancer treatments to sexual violence [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref5">5</xref>]. This affects their attitude towards therapy, the workers and use of vaginal dilation and frequent sexual penetration to prevent vaginal stenosis. The exploration on the experiences of gynaecological cancer patients undergoing brachytherapy was found to be of a difficult nature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref6">6</xref>]. Poor attitudes towards therapy cancer patients such as fear, sexual inactivity, guilty from breaking religious and traditional, experience anxiety when going to the radiotherapy department because of a lack of knowledge of, and/or misconceptions about the treatment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref6">6</xref>] contributed to vaginal stenosis.</p><p>The International Atomic Energy Agency [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref7">7</xref>] publication revealed that there were myths around cervical cancer treatment and outcomes to the extent that many resort to vising traditional healers and the use of herbs. Radiation-induced vaginal stenosis is a commonly observed side effect following treatment with pelvic radiotherapy pelvic cancers. There should be care to prioritize and recognize the potential negative impact of vaginal stenosis on the physical and psychological well-being of patients. This study therefore aimed at determining attitudes and practices that contribute to poor adherence to preventive measures against vaginal stenosis in women with cervical cancer following brachytherapy at the Cancer Diseases Hospital (CDH) in Lusaka, Zambia.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><p>This cross sectional study was conducted between September and December 2021 among 163 participants at CDH in Lusaka Province of Zambia. The CDH was chosen as it is the only Hospital offering cancer treatment in the country. Total enumeration of patients on brachytherapy was done from which sampling was generated. Systematic sampling was employed in selection of the study participants who were all patients that received services at CDH. Data were collected from willing participants to determine the attitudes and practices that contributed to poor adherence to preventive measures against vaginal stenosis in women with cervical cancer following brachytherapy. Data for 163 participants were analyzed using SPSS version 25 to establish the attitude and practices contributing to poor adherence to preventive measures against vaginal stenosis in women with cervical cancer following brachytherapy.</p><p>Study Design: Analytical cross sectional study.</p><p>Study Location: Cancer Diseases Hospital (CDH) in Lusaka Province of Zambia.</p><p>Study Duration: September to December 2021.</p><p>Sample size: 163 patients.</p><p>Sample size calculation: Sample size of 163 was calculated using the Gosh formula (Gosh, 2013) from a population of patients treated with brachytherapy in 2019 = 1602 (CDH 2019 statistics).</p><p>Subjects &amp; selection method: Systematic sampling was used for participants receiving brachytherapy at CDH. From the patient size of 1602 and calculated sample size of 163, the sampling interval was 10 (1602/163 = 10). Therefore, every 10<sup>th</sup> patient was selected from the patient list until the desired sample size of 163 was reached.</p><p>Inclusion criteria: for someone to be a suitable respondent to participate in this research, she must have been a patient suffering from cervical cancer and was currently receiving brachytherapy as a result of cervical cancer or had received brachytherapy in the past 12 months prior to the interview. The inclusion criteria did not consider the presence or absence of vaginal stenosis in the respondent.</p><p>Exclusion criteria: any sign of recurrent or metastatic cancer, medical or psycho-logical problems and all those with vaginal stenosis not linked to cervical cancer radiation therapy were excluded from the study.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Procedure Methodology</title><p>Two trained Field Research Assistants were involved in reaching out to participants at CDH. Questionnaires were used collect data from individual participants using face to face approach.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Statistical Analysis</title><p>Data were entered in Microsoft excel and exported to SPSS V.25 for analysis. After cleaning, descriptive statistics were calculated and presented as frequencies and proportions. Chi square and Fisher’s exact statistical tests were used to compare the distribution of vaginal stenosis across baseline characteristics at 5% level of significance. The binomial logit model was used in model estimation using an investigator-led backward stepwise approach, guided by various fit statistics. The best-fit model had a correct-classification score of 70%, sensitivity of 49%, and specificity of 85%. The ROC area was at 69 percent.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Ethical Consideration</title><p>The approval to conduct the study was obtained from University of Zambia Research Ethics Committee (REF. 1770-2021) and National Health Research Authority (NHRA). Informed consent was sought from each study participant prior to enrolment. In situations where the respondent desired to withdraw and it was outside the control of the interviewer, they were freely allowed to do so and all their information shredded immediately, however, no patient withdrew from the study. Information that was obtained during the study was treated with utmost confidentiality as it bordered on personal information. Written permission from study site was also be obtained.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Result</title><p>A total of 163 patients participated in the study over one third of the respondents were aged between 40 to 49 years 57 (35%) and at least 50 years old 56 (34.3%). More than half of the respondents 93 (57.1%) were single while 79 (42.9%) of women were married at the time of the study. Over one-third 70 (42.9%) of the respondents were from within Lusaka province, while the rest 93 (57.1%) were referred from outside Lusaka province. The majority 96 (58.9%) lived over 10 kilometres from the Cancer Diseases Hospital whereas, under a third 50 (30.7%) resided within 5 kilometres of the health facility.</p><p>All study respondents were Christians, of which over a quarter 45 (27.6%) belonged to the catholic and Pentecostal faiths each, while 34 (20.9%) of them belonged to the Seventh-Day Adventist faith. Over one-third 57 (35%) of the respondents attained secondary education followed by those who have had only primary education 53 (32.5%). The majority 126 (77.3%) of the respondents were unemployed. The mean reported length of therapy at the time of the study was 5.1 (&#177;3.3) months ranging from as low as 3 months to as high as 40 months. (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of baseline characteristics between levels of vaginal stenosis</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Characteristic</th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Vaginal stenosis</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall, n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes, n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No, n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age in years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 - 25 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (4.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (50.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.309<sup>F</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >26 - 39 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42 (25.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22 (52.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (47.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 - 49 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57 (35.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24 (42.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (57.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >At least 50 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56 (34.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (33.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (66.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Marital status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Single</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93 (57.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34 (37.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58 (62.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.200<sup>C</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Married</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70 (42.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34 (48.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (51.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Distance from CDH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Under 5 km</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50 (30.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (34.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (66.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.295<sup>C</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 - 10 km</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (10.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (52.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (47.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Over 10 km</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96 (58.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43 (44.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53 (55.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Religion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Catholic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45 (27.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (26.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (73.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019<sup>C</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Adventist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34 (20.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (52.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (47.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pentecostal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45 (27.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 (55.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (44.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (23.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (35.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 (64.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Highest education level</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (6.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (63.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (36.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.223<sup>F </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53 (32.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (39.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 (60.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57 (35.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (35.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (64.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tertiary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42 (25.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (50.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (50.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Employment status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Employed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (22.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (54.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (45.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.101<sup>C</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unemployed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >126 (77.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49 (38.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77 (61.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup> </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length on brachytherapy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Under 6 months</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >124 (76.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76 (61.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (38.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.184<sup>F</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 - 12 months</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (22.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (44.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (55.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Over 12 months</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (1.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (66.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>C = Chi-squared test; F = Fisher’s exact test.</p><p>As shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>, common reported signs/symptoms of vaginal stenosis included vaginal pain 129 (79.1%), unexplained vaginal bleeding 77 (47.2%), pain during sex 74 (45.4%) and experiences of a tight vagina 91 (55.8%). Other common signs/symptoms reported were bloody discharge 20 (27.4%) and watery vaginal discharge 52 (71.2%). Under half, 69 (42.3%) of the respondents reported having signs/symptoms indicative of vaginal stenosis whereas 94 (57.7%) had no signs/symptoms indicating vaginal stenosis.</p><p>Under two thirds 98 (60.1%) of the respondents were sexually active and among these, just over half 50 (51%) engaged in sexual activity weekly whereas over one third 34 (34.7%) engaged in sexual activity twice a week. Almost all 162 (99.4%) respondents reported using vaginal dilators always and being in control of their use. Over half 94 (57.7%) of the respondents often skipped dilator use, while over two thirds 110 (67.5%) reported often forgetting to use the dilator. Many 114 (69.9%) of the respondents used dilators as a method of preventing vaginal stenosis, whereas a quarter 41 (25.2%) reported using penetrative sex as a preventive measure under a quarter, 39 (24%) of the respondents had poor practices while the majority, 124 (76%) reported good practices (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> shows that all respondents 163 (100%) would skip the use of a dilator when they felt better and because of discomfort from the dilator. Similarly, most respondents reported that they would skip use of dilators because of feeling sick 155 (95.1%), pain from the dilator 157 (96.3%), interference with sexual life 160 (98.2%), considering the practice as sinful/embarrassing and because their religion/tradition forbids use of vaginal dilators 159 (97.5%). The majority 150 (93.9%) of the respondents expressed poor attitude towards vaginal stenosis preventive measures, whereas 10 (6.1%) had good attitude.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> shows odds ratio estimates at univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Women with poor practices compared to those with good practices (OR = 1.07, CI = 0.52 - 2.21, p = 0.855), poor attitudes compared to good attitudes (aOR = 1.28, CI = 0.29 - 5.71, p = 0.746) and those employed compared to unemployed (aOR = 1.76, CI = 0.73 - 4.27, p = 0.210) had increased</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence of vaginal stenosis (n = 163)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Signs of vaginal stenosis experienced</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Always n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Often n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sometimes n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rarely n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Never n (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22 (13.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (2.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >129 (79.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (3.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (1.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal bleeding</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77 (47.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (7.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72 (44.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pain during sex</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (17.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (1.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74 (45.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (1.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54 (33.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tight vagina</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91 (55.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (4.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (29.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (2.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (7.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other signs/symptoms</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Frequency (n)</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Percent (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bloody discharge</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >27.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Watery discharge</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >52</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >71.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yellowish discharge</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >1.4</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Practices contributing to vaginal stenosis (n = 163)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Category</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (n)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percent (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Sexually active</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Frequency of sex</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Weekly</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Twice a week</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥3 times</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Frequency of dilator use</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Always</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >162</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Often</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Control over dilator use</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >162</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Skipping dilator use</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Always</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Often</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Forgetting use of dilator</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Always</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Often</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >110</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Method of preventing vaginal stenosis used</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dilators</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >114</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Herbs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Penetrative sex</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.2</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Attitudes contributing to vaginal stenosis (n = 163)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Statement</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Category</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (n)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percent (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Would skip use of the dilator when feeling better</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >163</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Would skip use of the dilator when feeling sick</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >155</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Would skip use of the dilator because of pain from the dilator</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >157</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Would skip use of the dilator because it interferes with sexual life</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >160</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Would skip use of the dilator because of discomfort</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >163</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Would feel guilty after using a dilator</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >113</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Avoids use of the dilator because of feeling sinful/embarrassed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >160</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Tradition forbids use of dilators as it is a taboo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >159</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Religion forbids use of dilators</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >159</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.5</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis for the outcome, vaginal stenosis</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Univariable estimates</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Multivariable estimates</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >OR</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CI (95%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >aOR</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CI (95%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Religious affiliation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Catholic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Seventh day adventist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.20, 7.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.27, 9.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.015</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61, 3.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.363</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.68, 4.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.235</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pentecostal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.42, 8.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.006</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.49, 10.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Education level</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10, 1.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.153</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11, 1.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.246</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08, 1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.087</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10, 1.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.218</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tertiary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15, 2.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.423</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14, 2.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.583</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Employment status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unemployed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Employed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88, 3.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.103</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.73, 4.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.210</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Practices</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Good</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52, 2.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.855</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.40, 2.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.854</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Attitude</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Good</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44, 7.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.421</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.29, 5.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.746</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length on brachytherapy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Under 6 months</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ref</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 - 12 months</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.93, 4.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.074</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03, 5.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.042</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Over 12 months</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07, 8.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.850</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06, 9.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.795</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>OR = unadjusted odds ratio, CI = confidence interval; aOR = adjusted odds ratio.</p><p>odds of vaginal stenosis. However, there was not enough evidence of a real effect on odds of vaginal stenosis associated with these variables at 5% level of significance. The effect of increasing the level of education compared to having no formal education was to decrease the odds of vaginal stenosis at univariable and multivariable analysis. Similarly, this predictive effect was not significant at both levels of analysis. On the other hand, the odds of having vaginal stenosis were over 2 times higher for women who had been on brachytherapy between 6 and 12 months compared to those on brachytherapy for less than 6 months (OR = 2.45, CI = 1.03 - 5.82, p = 0.042) and this effect was significant at 5% significance level.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Discussion</title><p>This study determined the attitudes and practices contributing to vaginal stenosis in women with cervical cancer following brachytherapy at the CDH. Vaginal Stenosis continuously develops with time, meaning that mild VS occurs in the first year, and moderate or severe VS—three years after the treatment is finished [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref2">2</xref>]. Further, studies have reported that VS present high prevalence women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy treatment, around 3% to 33%, interfering with quality of life [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref8">8</xref>]. The situation in Zambia is very similar to many other countries where VS cases are recorded leaving several women vulnerable.</p><p>The findings of this study revealed that the older a woman would be the more likely to have been diagnosed with cervical cancer. This however, was contrary to a study by Funston et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref9">9</xref>] who reported most incident age range of 25 to 49 years and reported that most women, when diagnosed with the disease, do not require brachytherapy, which is indicated when the disease is in more advanced stages. It is also noteworthy that the results of the present study congruent to a study carried out in southern Brazil including women undergoing brachytherapy, which showed a minimum age of 44 years and a maximum of 77 years, with a mean age of 51 years and a more incident age range of 50 - 59 years. However, the same investigation showed that most women were married (72%), unlike the findings of this study [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref10">10</xref>]. The study found that women’ educational status is associated with VS with the highest incident among women without any form of education. This implies that low education poses a risk for women to develop VS. The results from the study also showed that VS was common among women who were unemployed than those with an employment. However, the study could not compare this result with other studies because from the best of our knowledge the first study that assessed the relationship between RTIVS and socio-demographic characteristics considered in the study. The study found that women who received chemo radiation were more prone to VS than those who received radiotherapy only. This is consistent with a study conducted in which reported that among women treated with image-guided brachytherapy for cervical or endometrial cancer, vaginal dose and volume were also associated with an increased risk of VS [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref12">12</xref>].</p><p>This study found that majority (89.6%) of the respondents demonstrated a more positive attitude toward usage of vaginal dilators. This is contrary with a systematic review conducted on the patients’ perception and adherence to vaginal dilator therapy which reported negative perceptions toward VD were frequently mentioned as a major barrier to VD therapy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref5">5</xref>]. Some women perceived VD as arduous, annoying, or bothersome chore [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref13">13</xref>]. In a study by Edmond et al. it was reported that women emphasized positive perspectives toward VD as a facilitator of the therapy similar to our findings. For these women, VD was an important therapy that made them feel better and retain a sense of normality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref14">14</xref>].</p><p>Vaginal dilation therapy is frequently recommended to prevent and reduce the abovementioned side effects. Its functions include minimizing vaginal stenosis and scarring, preventing adhesions, promoting improved vaginal healing, relaxing pelvic floor muscles, and preventing pain [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref15">15</xref>]. This study found that there was good usage of VD among women. This is supported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref15">15</xref>] who strongly recommended either the use of a vaginal dilator or frequent sexual intercourse after completion of radiotherapy for cervical cancer survivors to maintain a healthy vaginal canal. However, a systematic review by Miles and Johnson concluded that there is no concrete evidence that routine regular vaginal dilation during RT treatment prevents stenosis or improves quality of life [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref16">16</xref>]. Several authors have cited vaginal dilation as the major therapeutic strategy to prevent and treat Radiotherapy-induced VS [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref18">18</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Conclusion</title><p>Radiation-induced VS is a commonly observed side effect following treatment with pelvic RT for uterine, cervical, vaginal and anorectal cancers. Survivorship care should prioritize and recognize the potential negative impact of VS on the physical and psychological well-being of patients. However, there is a paucity of high-level evidence of the attitudes and practices on prevention and management strategies for VS, and more up-to-date empirical data are required. The effect of increasing the level of education compared to having no formal education was to decrease the odds of vaginal stenosis. However, this predictive effect was not statistically significant at both levels of analysis in this study. Similarly, women with poor practices compared to good practices, poor attitudes compared to good attitudes and those employed compared to unemployed had increased odds of vaginal stenosis. On the other hand, although length n brachytherapy showed no significant effect, the odds of having vaginal stenosis were 2.45 times higher for women who had been on brachytherapy between 6 and 12 months compared to those on brachytherapy for less than 6 months. Failure to practice recommended measures and poor attitudes towards therapy contributes to vaginal stenosis. Efforts should be channelled towards overcoming religious, traditional, cultural and personal impediments contributing to vaginal stenosis in women with cervical cancer receiving brachytherapy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121398-ref21">21</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors gratefully acknowledge that this dissertation would not have been possible without a research grant from CHRESO University and the study participants from Cancer Diseases Hospital for accepting to participate in the study without which this work would not have been possible.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Declaration</title><p>I, Matipa Roydah, do hereby declare to the Senate of University of Zambia that this dissertation is my own original work and has neither been submitted nor been concurrently submitted for degree award in any other Institution.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate</title><p>Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Zambia Biomedical Ethic Committee (REF N0…1770-2021….) and the National health research committee.</p></sec><sec id="s10"><title>Availability of Data and Material</title><p>The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author and the University of Zambia on reasonable request.</p></sec><sec id="s11"><title>Authors’ Contributions</title><p>CMN, SM, VMK, CS, NNT AND MB contributed to the conception of the project, proposal writing, data collection and study supervision, data analysis and manuscript writing.</p></sec><sec id="s12"><title>Funding</title><p>This study was sponsored by the corresponding author of this document.</p></sec><sec id="s13"><title>Competing Interests</title><p>The authors declare that they have no competing interests in this study.</p></sec><sec id="s14"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Matipa, R., Ngoma, C.M., Mayimbo, S., Kalusopa, V.M., Simoonga, C., Tembo, N.N., Banda, M. and Milanzi, J. (2022) Attitudes and Practices Contributing to Vaginal Stenosis in Women with Cervical Cancer Following Brachytherapy at Cancer Diseases Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. A Cross Sectional Study. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 12, 1202-1214. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2022.1211105</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.121398-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dzaka, A.D. and Maree, J.E. (2016) Experiences of Women Receiving High Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer at an Academic Hospital. Southern African Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 8, 20-23. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/20742835.2016.1257174</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yoshida, K., Yamazaki, H., Nakamura, S., Masui, K., Kotsuma, T., Akiyama, H., Tanaka, E., Yoshikawa, N., Uesugi, Y., Shimbo, T. and Narumi, Y. (2015) Role of Vaginal Pallor Reactionin Predicting Late Vaginal Stenosis after High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy in Treatment-Naive Patients with Cervical Cancer. Journal of Gynecological Oncology, 26, 179-184. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2015.26.3.179</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mirabeau-Beale, K., Hong, T.S., Niemierko, A., Ancukiewicz, M., Blaszkowsky, L.S., Crowley, E.M., Cusack, J.C., Drapek, L.C., Kovalchuk, N., Markowski, M. and Napolitano, B. (2015) Clinical and Treatment Factors Associated with Vaginal Stenosis after Definitive Chemoradiation for Anal Canal Cancer. Practical Radiation Oncology, 5, e113-e118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2014.09.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pessi</surname><given-names> M.R.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Feuerschuette</surname><given-names> K.K.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Alvarez</surname><given-names> A.M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2016</year>)<article-title>Prevention of Vaginal Stenosis after Brachytherapy: Nursing Intervention</article-title><source> Journal of Nursing UFPE on Line</source><volume> 10</volume>,<fpage> 3495</fpage>-<lpage>3502</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lee, Y. (2018) Patients’ Perception and Adherence to Vaginal Dilator Therapy: A Systematic Review and Synthesis Employing Symbolic Interactionism. Patient Preference and Adherence, 12, 551-560. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S163273</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Humphrey, P., Bennett, C. and Cramp, F. (2018) The Experiences of Women Receiving Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review. Radiography, 24, 396-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.06.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">International Atomic Energy Publication (2019) Ten Years of Saving Lives: Controlling Cancer in Zambia. IAEA Office of Public Information and Communication.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Boer, S.M., Powell, M.E., Mileshkin, L., Katsaros, D., Bessette, P., Haie-Meder, C., Ottevanger, P.B., Ledermann, J.A., Khaw, P., D’Amico, R. and Fyles, A. (2019) Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Alone in Women with High-Risk Endometrial Cancer (PORTEC-3): Patterns of Recurrence and Post-Hoc Survival Analysis of a Randomised Phase 3 Trial. The Lancet, Oncology, 20, 1273-1285.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30395-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bahng, A.Y., Dagan, A., Bruner, D.W. and Lin, L.L. (2012) Determination of Prognostic Factors for Vaginal Mucosal Toxicity Associated with Intravaginal High-Dose Rate Brachytherapy in Patients with Endometrial Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 82, 667-673. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.071</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Funston, G., O’Flynn, H., Ryan, N.A., Hamilton, W. and Crosbie, E.J. (2018) Recognizing Gynecological Cancer in Primary Care: Risk Factors, Red Flags, and Referrals. Advances in Therapy, 35, 577-589. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018-0683-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Duarte, é.B., Da Rosa, L.M., Radünz, V., Dias, M., Da Silva, R.H., Lunardi, F. and Pessi, M.R. (2020) Mulheres em braquiterapia pélvica: (Des) conhecimento e aten&amp;atilde;o profissional comosignificado. Cogitare Enfermagem, 25, e68406.  
https://doi.org/10.5380/ce.v25i0.68406</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Susko, M., Craciunescu, O., Meltsner, S., Yang, Y., Steffey, B., Cai, J. and Chino, J. (2016) Vaginal Dose Is Associated with Toxicity in Image Guided Tandem Ring or Ovoid-Based Brachytherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 94, 1099-1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.12.360</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Park, H.S., Ratner, E.S., Lucarelli, L., Polizzi, S., Higgins, S.A. and Damast, S. (2015) Predictors of Vaginal Stenosis after Intravaginal High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Endometrial Carcinoma. Brachytherapy, 14, 464-470. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2015.03.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bakker, R.M., Ter Kuile, M.M., Vermeer, W.M., Nout, R.A., Mens, J.W.M., Van Doorn, L.C., De Kroon, C.D., Hompus, W.C., Braat, C. and Creutzberg, C.L. (2014) Sexual Rehabilitation after Pelvic Radiotherapy and Vaginal Dilator Use: Consensus Using the Delphi Method. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 24, 1499-1506.  
https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000253</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Edmonds, D.K., Rose, G.L., Lipton, M.G. and Quek, J. (2012) Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome: A Review of 245 Consecutive Cases Managed by a Multidisciplinary Approach with Vaginal Dilators. Fertility and Sterility, 97, 686-690.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.038</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cullen, K., Fergus, K., DasGupta, T., Fitch, M., Doyle, C. and Adams, L. (2012) From “Sextoy” to Intrusive Imposition: A Qualitative Examination of Women’s Experiences with Vaginal Dilator Use Following Treatment for Gynecological Cancer. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 1162-1173. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02639.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Daga, D., Dana, R., Gaur, P. and Spartacus, R.K. (2017) Sexual Function in Cervical Cancer Survivors after Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy. Middle East Journal of Cancer, 8, 151-154.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Matos, S.R.D.L., Lucas Rocha Cunha, M., Podgaec, S., Weltman, E., Yamazaki Centrone, A.F. and Cintra Nunes Mafra, A.C. (2019) Consensus for Vaginal Stenosis Prevention in Patients Submitted to Pelvic Radiotherapy. PLOS ONE, 14, e0221054.  
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221054</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miles, T. and Johnson, N. (2014) Vaginal Dilator Therapy for Women Receiving Pelvic Radiotherapy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 9, CD007291.  
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007291.pub3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Law, E., Kelvin, J.F., Thom, B., Riedel, E., Tom, A., Carter, J., Alektiar, K.M. and Goodman, K.A. (2015) Prospective Study of Vaginal Dilator Use Adherence and Efficacy Following Radiotherapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 116, 149-155. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.06.018</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121398-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bakker, R.M., Vermeer, W.M., Creutzberg, C.L., Mens, J.W.M., Nout, R.A. and Ter Kuile, M.M. (2015) Qualitative Accounts of Patients’ Determinants of Vaginal Dilator Use after Pelvic Radiotherapy. The journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 764-773. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12776</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>