ArticleSexually transmitted infections1999
A social science perspective on screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementing chlamydia screening: what do women think? A systematic review of the literature.BMC public health · 2006Pooled it
- Psychosocial impact of Chlamydia trachomatis testing in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent report from the chief medical officer's expert advisory group on Chlamydia trachomatis has recommended the setting up of two pilot projects to assess the feasibility of introducing a national chlamydia screening programme. In addition to screening all symptomatic individuals and all attenders at genitourinary medicine clinics, the report recommends opportunistic screening of sexually active young women and women at high risk of infection, who are attending either general practice or family planning clinics. The success of any new screening programme depends on a wide variety of factors, not least the acceptability of such screening to its target population. In recent years, social scientists have made significant contributions to the understanding of the psychological factors which facilitate or inhibit uptake of screening services. The aim of this report is to discuss briefly the contribution social scientists could make to the chlamydia screening programme in the United Kingdom. In particular, the possible effects of screening for a stigmatized condition such as a sexually transmitted infection are explored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.