Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19099571›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2008

A study of young peoples' attitudes to opportunistic Chlamydia testing in UK general practice.

Joanne Heritage, Melvyn Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recommendation on screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in primary care for individuals not known to be at high risk.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. General practice chlamydia testing: a qualitative study of staff approaches using behavioural change theory.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joanne HeritageUniversity College London Medical School, Department of Primary Care & Population Health, Highgate Hill, London, UK. jo_heritage@hotmail.com
Melvyn Jones

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess young people's perceptions of being offered a chlamydia screening test in United Kingdom (UK) general practice.

methodsThis is qualitative study that uses focus groups and individual interviews with young adults (age 16 - 18) to assess their views.

resultsThese young adults were a difficult group to gain access to. Two focus groups, one in a school, the other in a general practice (family practice), and 2 individual interviews were undertaken (total sample 18). Respondents were unfamiliar with Chlamydia, but broadly aware of sexually transmitted infections. General practice (family practice) was perceived as an acceptable place to deliver opportunistic screening, but participants felt that tests should not be initiated by GP receptionists. Novel delivery routes such as schools and "Pub"/Bar dispensing machines were discussed. Issues around stigma and confidentiality were also raised.

conclusionOpportunistic Chlamydia screening in UK general practice (family practic seems acceptable to young adults. While this is a difficult group to gain access to for research, attempts need to made to ensure acceptability to users of this programme.

Identifiers

PMID19099571
PMCPMC2634761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.