Barriers and Facilitators to the Preadoption of a Computer-Aided Diagnosis Tool for Cervical Cancer: Qualitative Study on Health Care Providers' Perspectives in Western Cameroon.

Abstract

Background: Computer-aided detection and diagnosis (CAD) systems can enhance the objectivity of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), which is widely used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for cervical cancer detection. VIA's reliance on subjective health care provider (HCP) interpretation introduces variability in diagnostic accuracy. CAD tools can address some limitations; nonetheless, understanding the contextual factors affecting CAD integration is essential for effective adoption and sustained use, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

Objective: This study investigated the barriers and facilitators perceived by HCPs in Western Cameroon regarding sustained CAD tool use for cervical cancer detection using VIA. The aim was to guide smooth technology adoption in similar settings by identifying specific barriers and facilitators and optimizing CAD's potential benefits while minimizing obstacles.

Methods: The perspectives of HCPs on adopting CAD for VIA were explored using a qualitative methodology. The study participants included 8 HCPs (6 midwives and 2 gynecologists) working in the Dschang district, Cameroon. Focus group discussions were conducted with midwives, while individual interviews were conducted with gynecologists to comprehend unique perspectives. Each interview was audio-recorded, transcribed, and independently coded by 2 researchers using the ATLAS.ti (Lumivero, LLC) software. The technology acceptance lifecycle framework guided the content analysis, focusing on the preadoption phases to examine the perceived acceptability and initial acceptance of the CAD tool in clinical workflows. The study findings were reported adhering to the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) and SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklists.

Results: Key elements influencing the sustained use of CAD tools for VIA by HCPs were identified, primarily within the technology acceptance lifecycle's preadoption framework. Barriers included the system's ease of use, particularly challenges associated with image acquisition, concerns over confidentiality and data security, limited infrastructure and resources such as the internet and device quality, and potential workflow changes. Facilitators encompassed the perceived improved patient care, the potential for enhanced diagnostic accuracy, and the integration of CAD tools into routine clinical practices, provided that infrastructure and training were adequate. The HCPs emphasized the importance of clinical validation, usability testing, and iterative feedback mechanisms to build trust in the CAD tool's accuracy and utility.

Conclusions: This study provides practical insights from HCPs in Western Cameroon regarding the adoption of CAD tools for VIA in clinical settings. CAD technology can aid diagnostic objectivity; however, data management, workflow adaptation, and infrastructure limitations must be addressed to avoid "pilotitis"-the failure of digital health tools to progress beyond the pilot phase. Effective implementation requires comprehensive technology management, including regulatory compliance, infrastructure support, and user-focused training. Involving end users can ensure that CAD tools are fully integrated and embraced in LMICs to aid cervical cancer screening.