Skip to main content

Advertisement

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