Skip to main content

Table 3 Studies of interventions to increase screening in both sexes, by sex (n = 5)

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

Author surname, year

Intervention type

Sex

Intervention phase

Intervention group

Control group

Statistical findings reported**

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

    

Patients (n)

% screened

Patients (n)

% screened

  
   

During

4018

16.8%

9068

13.2%

  
  

F

Roll out

5368

15.5%

12124

13.7%

NR

1.3 (1.2-1.4)

Morgan[21] 2009

Incentive

 

Before

2676

13.9%

6077

13.0%

  
   

During

4190

4.2%

8524

2.1%

  
  

M

Roll out

5588

3.4%

11333

2.1%

p = 0.05A

2.0 (1.6-2.5)

   

Before

2833

3.0%

5529

1.7%

  

Merritt[20] 2007

Quality improvement program

F

Late-intervention

-*

10.2%C

-*

-*

NR

1.5B

   

Before

-*

6.7%C

-*

-*

  
  

M

Late-intervention

-*

6.3%C

-*

-*

NR

1.4B

   

Before

-*

4.5%C

-*

-*

  
  

F

During

-*

146^

-*

138^

NR

1.1B, D

Armstrong[14] 2010

Doctor education

 

Before

-*

53^

-*

113^

  
  

M

During

-*

16^

-*

10^

NR

1.6B, D

   

Before

-*

4^

-*

8^

  

Bilardi[16] 2009

Patient education

F

During

2002

6.4%

-*

-*

1.0E

1.0 (0.8-1.2)

   

Before

1548

6.3%

-*

-*

  
  

M

During

995

3.0%

-*

-*

0.8E

1.1 (0.7-2.0)

   

Before

752

2.7%

-*

-*

  

Schafer[23] 2002,

Quality improvement program

F

During

1092

43.8%

1299

15.6%

p < 0.01F

2.8 (2.4-3.2)

Tebb[24] 2005

  

Before

80

5.0%

86

14.0%

  
  

M

During

990

44.9%

1024

15.1%

p < 0.01G

3.0 (2.5-3.5)

   

Before

76

2.6%

61

7.0%

  
  1. ** Higher odds ratio or relative risk means intervention leads to greater screening
  2. OR-odds ratio, RR-relative risk, * Information not reported, M = male F = female, NR = not reported
  3. ^Total tests
  4. A = Authors conducted a t-test for differences in the proportion of tests conducted in males and 16-24 year olds in the intervention practices compared to control practices
  5. B = Insufficient information to reviewers to calculate 95% CI
  6. C = Screening rates based on 4 of the six clinics in the intervention clinics only
  7. D = Reviewers compared total tests in intervention clinic to control clinic during intervention period only
  8. E = Author conducted a test for equality in proportions
  9. F = Authors assessed the statistical significance of the time by group effect using an F test
  10. G = Authors adjusted for differences in ethnicity between study groups at baseline