Skip to main content

Table 1 Studies of interventions to increase screening in females (n = 15)

From: Efficacy of interventions to increase the uptake of chlamydia screening in primary care: a systematic review

Author surname, year

Country

Intervention type

Evaluation design

Clinics (n)

Target age group (yrs)

Intervention phase

Intervention group

Control group

Statistical findings reported**

Crude RR (and 95% CI) calculated by reviewer**

       

Patients (n)

% screened

Patients (n)

% screened

  

Walker[26] 2010

Aust

 

RCT

66

16-24

During

12098

12.2%

12924

10.6%

OR = 1.3

(95%CI:1.1-1.4)A

 
  

Prompt

   

Before

11518

8.3%

11704

8.8%

  

Scholes[22] 2006

US

 

RCT

23

14-20

During

1777

42.6%

1732

40.8

OR = 1.0

(95%CI:0.9-1.2)B

 

McNulty[19] 2008

UK

 

RCT

44

16-24

During

-*

-*

-*

-*

RR = 1.0

(95%CI:0.8-1.2)C

 

Bilardi[15] 2010

Aust

 

RCT

12

16-24

During

1589

13.4%

1792

8.8%

OR = 0.9

(95%CI:0.6-1.2)D

 
  

Incentive

   

Before

2662

11.5%

2689

6.2%

  
      

During

4018

16.8%

9068

13.2%

  

Morgan[21] 2009

NZ

 

Non-RCT

49

16-24

Roll out

5368

15.5%

12124

13.7%

NR

1.3 (1.2-1.4)E

      

Before

2676

13.9%

6077

13.0%

  

Bowden[17] 2008

Aust

Alternative specimen collection

RCT

31

16-25

During

16082

6.9%

10794

4.5%

OR = 2.1

(95%CI:1.3-3.4)F

 

Verhoeven[25] 2005

Belgium

 

RCT

36

< 35 yr

During

-*

7#

-*

4.72#

p = 0.106G

1.5 E, H

Burstein[18] 2005

US

 

Non-RCT

NS

15-26

During

-*

32%

-*

-*

NS

1.1H

  

Doctor education

   

Before

-*

30%

-*

-*

  

Armstrong[14] 2003

Scotland

 

Non-RCT

2

15-24

During

-*

146##

-*

138##

NR

1.1E, H

      

Before

-*

53##

-*

113##

  

Allison[13] 2005

US

    

After

-*

15.5%

-*

12.4%

  
   

RCT

191

16-26

During

-*

13.3%

-*

13.0%

p = 0.04I, J

1.3H, J

      

Before

-*

16.2%

-*

18.9%

  

McNulty[19] 2008

UK

 

RCT

82

16-24

During

-*

-*

-*

-*

RR = 1.3

(95%CI:1.1-1.6)C

 

Bilardi[16] 2009

Aust

Patient education

Non-RCT

3

16-24

During

2002

6.4%

-*

-*

p = 0.95G

1.0 (0.8-1.2)

      

Before

1548

6.3%

-*

-*

  

Schafer[23] 2002

US

 

RCT

10

14-18

During

1092

43.8%

1299

15.6%

p < 0.01

2.8 (2.4-3.2)E

  

Quality improvement program

   

Before

80

5.0%

86

14.0%

  

Scholes[22] 2006

US

 

RCT

23

14-25

During

5650

42%

6105

40.1%

OR = 1.0

(95%CI:0.9-1.1)B

 

Merritt[20] 2007

Australia

 

RCT

6

15-24

Late-intervention

-*

10.2%^

-*

-*

NR

1.5H, I

      

Before

-*

6.7%^

-*

-*

  
  1. **Higher odds ratio or relative risk means intervention leads to greater screening.
  2. Aust-Australia, US = United States, UK = United Kingdom, NZ = New Zealand, RCT = Randomised controlled trial, OR-odds ratio, RR-relative risk, M = male F = female NR = not reported, NS = not significant. *Information not reported, #mean tests per GP, ##total tests, ^available
  3. for four of six practices
  4. A = Author conducted a mixed effect logistic regression with a 3-level hierarchy (patients, individual GPs and GP clinics)
  5. B = Author conducted chi-square tests and logistic regression model
  6. C = Author conducted a multi-level model with aggregate baseline tests and positivity included as co-variates. Unit of analysis was GP practice
  7. D = Author conducted a mixed effect logistic regression with a 2-level hierarchy (patients, individual GPs)
  8. E = Screening rate in intervention clinic compared to control clinic during intervention period only
  9. F = Author conducted logistic regression adjusted for clustering within general practices = number of female doctors per practices and number of doctors enrolled in the practice were included in the model
  10. G = Author conducted a test for equality in proportions
  11. H = Insufficient information to calculate 95% CI
  12. I = Author conducted an intention to treat analysis at the clinic level comparing mean post-intervention screening rates for the two groups. A general linear model adjusted for pre intervention done and intra intervention screening rates using repeated-measures analysis
  13. J = Screening rate in intervention clinic compared to control clinic post intervention
Back to article page

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

Contact us