ArticleSexually transmitted infections2002
Provider willingness to screen all sexually active adolescents for chlamydia.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Receipt Among Young Males Aged 15-24.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2018Article
- Chlamydia screening practices among physicians and community nurses in Yukon, Canada.International journal of circumpolar health · 2013Article
- Cervicitis in adolescents: do clinicians understand diagnosis and treatment?Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology · 2011Article
- Chlamydia screening of adolescent females: a survey of providers in Hawaii.Journal of community health · 2011Article
- Promoting chlamydia screening with posters and leaflets in general practice--a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2009Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis reinfection rates among female adolescents seeking rescreening in school-based health centers.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2008Article
- Review of Clinical Trials Testing the Effectiveness of Clinician Intervention Approaches to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Adolescent Outpatients.Current pediatric reviews · 2005Article
- Exploring Primary Care Clinicians' Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Delivery to Male Adolescents and Young Adults.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & PractitionersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess differences in provider willingness to screen all sexually active male and female adolescents for chlamydia and to determine whether concerns about cost effectiveness of screening are related to provider willingness to screen for chlamydia.
methodsAll primary care providers in a managed care organisation self administered a survey about screening all sexually active adolescents for chlamydia.
resultsRespondents were 217 physicians (MDs) and 121 nurse practitioners (NPs) or physician assistants (PAs). Excluding obstetrician/gynaecologists, more providers were willing to routinely screen adolescent females than males for chlamydia (67% v 49% respectively; p<0.001). Independent predictors of provider willingness to screen both males and females included belief that routine screening is cost effective and being a NP/PA v an MD. Belief that chlamydia screening is easier in females than males independently predicted less willingness to screen males.
conclusionInformation that reduces provider concern about the cost effectiveness of screening may increase provider willingness to screen adolescents for chlamydia. Availability of urine based tests may reduce provider beliefs that females are easier to screen than males and increase chlamydia screening in males.
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.