Skip to main content

Table 2 Studies of interventions to increase screening in males (n = 6)

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

  
      

During

4190

4.2%

8524

2.1%

  

Morgan[21] 2009

NZ

Incentive

Non-RCT

49

16-24

Roll out

5588

3.4%

11333

2.1%

NR

2.0 (1.6-2.5)A

      

Before

2833

3.0%

5529

1.7%

  

Anderson[6] 2005

Denmark

Alternative specimen collection

Non-RCT

3

16-25

During

617

29.4%

11204

3.8%

p < 0.01B

7.7 (6.6-9.0)A

      

Before

607

3.7%

12007

3.4%

  

Armstrong[14] 2003

Scotland

Doctor education

Non-RCT

2

15-24

During

-*

16^

-*

10^

NR

1.6C, D

      

Before

-*

4^

-*

8^

  

Bilardi[16] 2009

Aust

Patient education

Non-RCT

3

16-24

During

965

3.0%

-*

-*

p = 0.77B

1.1 (0.7-2.0)

      

Before

732

2.7%

-*

-*

  

Tebb[24] 2005

US

 

RCT

10

14-18

During

990

44.9%

1024

15.1%

p < 0.01

3.0 (2.5-3.5)

  

Quality improvement program

   

Before

76

2.6%

61

7.0%

  

Merritt[20] 2007

Australia

 

RCT

6

15-24

Late-intervention

-*

6.3%#

-*

-*

NR

1.4C

      

Before

-*

4.5%#

-*

-*

  
  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,*Information not reported, ^total tests # available for four of six practices
  3. A = Screening rate in intervention clinic compared to control clinic during intervention period only
  4. B = Author conducted a test for equality in proportions
  5. C = Insufficient information to reviewers to calculate 95% CI
  6. D = Reviewers compared total tests in intervention clinic to control clinic during intervention period only