ArticleSexually transmitted infections2001
The acceptability of urinary LCR testing for Chlamydia trachomatis among participants in a probability sample survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obtaining self-samples to diagnose curable sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review of patients' experiences.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Implementing chlamydia screening: what do women think? A systematic review of the literature.BMC public health · 2006Pooled it
- 'The difference in determinants of Chlamydia trachomatis and Mycoplasma genitalium in a sample of young Australian women'.BMC infectious diseases · 2011Article
- Delivery of chlamydia screening to young women requesting emergency hormonal contraception at pharmacies in Manchester, UK: a prospective study.BMC women's health · 2009Article
- Surveys on sexual health: recent developments and future directions.Sexually transmitted infections · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the factors that influence respondents' willingness to participate in urinary testing for Chlamydia trachomatis in a general population feasibility survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles.
methods199 sexually experienced, 18-44 year old participants, recruited as part of a larger (n=901) methodological study of sexual attitudes and lifestyles, were invited to provide a urine sample for chlamydial infection testing using ligase chain reaction (LCR) techniques. Analysis of the survey data and in-depth qualitative interviews were undertaken to explore the factors that influenced participants' decisions to participate.
results143/199 (72%) participants agreed to provide a urine sample. The likelihood of providing a urine sample was reduced if other individuals were present in the home at the time of interview (OR 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.90, p=0.03). Trust and rapport with the interviewer, understanding the aims of the test, sense of obligation, and perceived importance of the test were identified as additional influencing factors in the in-depth interviews.
conclusionsSurvey respondents' uncertainty or embarrassment at participating in urine testing can be overcome if they are well informed, motivated by the potential health gain, and briefed by trained and confident interviewers.
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.