Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23253518›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2012

Internet testing for Chlamydia trachomatis in England, 2006 to 2010.

Sarah C Woodhall, Bersabeh Sile, Alireza Talebi, Anthony Nardone, Paula Baraitser

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Sarah C WoodhallHealth Protection Agency, London, UK. sarah.woodhall@hpa.org.uk
Bersabeh Sile
Alireza Talebi
Anthony Nardone
Paula Baraitser

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years there has been interest in websites as a means of increasing access to free chlamydia tests through the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) in England. We aimed to describe and evaluate online access to chlamydia testing within the NCSP.

methodsWe analysed NCSP chlamydia testing data (2006-2010) for 15-24 year olds from the 71/95 programme areas in England where site codes were available to identify tests ordered through the internet. The characteristics of people using online testing services in 2010 were compared with those testing in general practice (GP) or community sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. We evaluated 58 websites offering free chlamydia tests through the NCSP, and 32 offering kits on a commercial basis for signposting to clinical service and health promotion advice offered.

resultsBetween 2006 and 2010, 5% of all tests in the included programme areas were accessed through the internet. The number of internet tests increased from 18 (<1% of all tests) in 2006 to 59,750 in 2010 (6% of all NCSP tests). In 2010 the proportion of NCSP tests accessed online by programme area ranged from <1% to 38%. The proportion of tests with a positive result on the internet was higher than tests from general practice and comparable to those from community SRH services (internet 7.6%; GP 5.6%; Community SRH 8.2%). A higher proportion of people accessing online testing were male, aged 20-24 and reported >1 sexual partner in the past year. Provision of sexual health information and appropriate signposting for those in need of clinical services varied between websites. Service provision within the NCSP was fragmented with multiple providers serving specific geographical catchment areas.

conclusionInternet testing reaches a population with a relatively high risk of chlamydia infection and appears acceptable to young men, a group that has been difficult to engage with chlamydia testing. In order to maximise the potential benefit of these services, websites should be consistent with national guidelines and adhere to minimum standards for signposting to clinical care and health promotion information. The current system with multiple providers servicing geographically specific catchment areas is contrary to the geographically unrestricted nature of the internet and potentially confusing for clients.

Indexed as

AdolescentChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisCommunity Health ServicesEnglandFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInternetMaleMass ScreeningProgram EvaluationReproductive Health ServicesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23253518
PMCPMC3554557

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.