ArticleBMC public health2010
Testing for sexually transmitted infections in general practice: cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- HIV testing strategies employed in health care settings in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA): evidence from a systematic review.HIV medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Primary care integration of sexual and reproductive health services for chlamydia testing across WHO-Europe: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- HIV testing within general practices in Europe: a mixed-methods systematic review.BMC public health · 2018Pooled it
- Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2018Pooled it
- Knowledge, Perceptions, and Practices of Primary Care Physicians on HIV and PrEP: Challenges and Principles of PrEP Use.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Twenty-two years of HIV-related consultations in Dutch general practice: a dynamic cohort study.BMJ open · 2013Article
- Where do young men want to access STI screening? A stratified random probability sample survey of young men in Great Britain.Sexually transmitted infections · 2012Article
- HIV: low prevalence is no excuse for not testing.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care is an important provider of sexual health care in England. We sought to explore the extent of testing for chlamydia and HIV in general practice and its relation to associated measures of sexual health in two contrasting geographical settings.
methodsWe analysed chlamydia and HIV testing data from 64 general practices and one genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic in Brent (from mid-2003 to mid-2006) and 143 general practices and two GUM clinics in Avon (2004). We examined associations between practice testing status, practice characteristics and hypothesised markers of population need (area level teenage conception rates and Index of Multiple Deprivation, IMD scores).
resultsNo HIV or chlamydia testing was done in 19% (12/64) of general practices in Brent, compared to 2.1% (3/143) in Avon. In Brent, the mean age of general practitioners (GPs) in Brent practices that tested for chlamydia or HIV was lower than in those that had not conducted testing. Practices where no HIV testing was done had slightly higher local teenage conception rates (median 23.5 vs. 17.4/1000 women aged 15-44, p = 0.07) and served more deprived areas (median IMD score 27.1 vs. 21.8, p = 0.05). Mean yearly chlamydia and HIV testing rates, in practices that did test were 33.2 and 0.6 (per 1000 patients aged 15-44 years) in Brent, and 34.1 and 10.3 in Avon, respectively. In Brent practices only 20% of chlamydia tests were conducted in patients aged under 25 years, compared with 39% in Avon.
conclusionsThere are substantial geographical differences in the intensity of chlamydia and HIV testing in general practice. Interventions to facilitate sexually transmitted infection and HIV testing in general practice are needed to improve access to effective sexual health care. The use of routinely-collected laboratory, practice-level and demographic data for monitoring sexual health service provision and informing service planning should be more widely evaluated.
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.