Will Chlamydia Screening Reach Young People in Deprived Areas in England? Baseline Analysis of the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme Delivery in 2008

Sheringham, Jessica; Simms, Ian; Riha, Johanna; Talebi, Alireza; Emmett, Lynsey; Macintosh, M. C. M.; Raine, Rosalind

doi:10.1097/olq.0b013e31821597ca

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The risk factors for a low screening uptake in our study were similar to other studies in England24 29 30 but differed from reports of population screening in the Netherlands, where those <20 years old were less like to accept screening 16. Further qualitative research among those who did and did not respond would enable a deeper understanding of what influenced their decisions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Evaluation of a systematic postal screening and treatment service for genitalChlamydia trachomatis, with remote clinic access via the internet: a cross-sectional study, East of England

Bracebridge¹,

Bachmann

Ramkhelawon

et al. 2012

Sex Transm Infect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Evaluation of a systematic postal screening and treatment service for genitalChlamydia trachomatis, with remote clinic access via the internet: a cross-sectional study, East of England

Bracebridge¹,

Bachmann

Ramkhelawon

et al. 2012

Sex Transm Infect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were cases of chlamydia infection at all levels of socioeconomic position in our study, indicating that reducing chlamydia prevalence and inequalities in the burden of infection requires proportionate universalism [31], ensuring that chlamydia testing services are available to all young people but intensifying efforts to promote coverage and uptake among those who are disadvantaged. The NCSP is taking efforts to achieve this, with greater provision of screening services in disadvantaged areas early in the programme's implementation [32], [33]. However, recent evidence shows uptake of screening services is similar across all levels of neighbourhood deprivation [6] despite the social gradient in infections, demonstrating that there may be a need for greater efforts to increase uptake among disadvantaged young people.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Chlamydia in Young Adulthood and Association with Life Course Socioeconomic Position: Birth Cohort Study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFew estimates are available of chlamydia prevalence in the general population. Existing studies have limited scope to explore potential selection bias or associations with socioeconomic position.MethodsWe examined the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and associations with life-course socioeconomic position in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children in England. Chlamydia infection was measured through nucleic acid amplification test of urine specimens.Results4864 (51%) of those invited attended the clinic (mean age 17.8; SD 0.37 years). (60%) provided a urine specimen. Prevalence was 1.0% (95% CI 0.6 to 1.6) among participants reporting sexual activity. Risk of infection was strongly associated with life course social disadvantage and with recent sexual behaviour. After adjustment for other measures of disadvantage and for sexual behaviour the strongest risk factors for infection were lower maternal educational attainment (OR 9.1 (1.1, 76.7)) and lower participant educational attainment at age 11 (OR 5.0 (1.5, 16.5)). Both clinic attendance and agreement to test were lower amongst the disadvantaged. Adjustment for selective participation based on detailed information on non-participants approximately doubled prevalence estimates. Prevalence was higher in sexually active women (1.4% (0.7 to 2.4) than men (0.5% (0.1 to 1.3)).ConclusionsChlamydia prevalence in this general population sample was low even after adjustment for selective participation in testing. These estimates of prevalence and patterns of association with socioeconomic position may both reflect recent screening efforts. Prevalence was higher amongst the disadvantaged who were also less likely to engage in testing. Our results reveal the importance of monitoring and addressing inequalities in screening programme participation and outcomes.

show abstract

“…coercion, acceptability) and possible gaming effects that need to be considered – but evidence of effectiveness would, at least, suggest that these additional issues require closer scrutiny. Chlaymdia screening rates from the NCSP are highest in the most deprived parts of England where the populations are also at greatest risk of infection (Sheringham et al., 2011). Therefore, offering incentives could make differences in screening coverage across deprivation levels grow even wider.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of financial incentives on chlamydia testing rates: Evidence from a randomized experiment

Dolan

Rudisill

2014

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Financial incentives have been used in a variety of settings to motivate behaviors that might not otherwise be undertaken. They have been highlighted as particularly useful in settings that require a single behavior, such as appointment attendance or vaccination. They also have differential effects based on socioeconomic status in some applications (e.g. smoking). To further investigate these claims, we tested the effect of providing different types of non-cash financial incentives on the return rates of chlamydia specimen samples amongst 16–24 year-olds in England. In 2011 and 2012, we ran a two-stage randomized experiment involving 2988 young people (1489 in Round 1 and 1499 in Round 2) who requested a chlamydia screening kit from Freetest.me, an online and text screening service run by Preventx Limited. Participants were randomized to control, or one of five types of financial incentives in Round 1 or one of four financial incentives in Round 2. We tested the effect of five types of incentives on specimen sample return; reward vouchers of differing values, charity donation, participation in a lottery, choices between a lottery and a voucher and including vouchers of differing values in the test kit prior to specimen return. Financial incentives of any type, did not make a significant difference in the likelihood of specimen return. The more deprived individuals were, as calculated using Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), the less likely they were to return a sample. The extent to which incentive structures influenced sample return was not moderated by IMD score. Non-cash financial incentives for chlamydia testing do not seem to affect the specimen return rate in a chlamydia screening program where test kits are requested online, mailed to requestors and returned by mail. They also do not appear more or less effective in influencing test return depending on deprivation level.

show abstract

Will Chlamydia Screening Reach Young People in Deprived Areas in England? Baseline Analysis of the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme Delivery in 2008

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

Evaluation of a systematic postal screening and treatment service for genitalChlamydia trachomatis, with remote clinic access via the internet: a cross-sectional study, East of England

Evaluation of a systematic postal screening and treatment service for genitalChlamydia trachomatis, with remote clinic access via the internet: a cross-sectional study, East of England

Prevalence of Chlamydia in Young Adulthood and Association with Life Course Socioeconomic Position: Birth Cohort Study

The effect of financial incentives on chlamydia testing rates: Evidence from a randomized experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About