Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25512674›Full record

Trial reportSexually transmitted infections2015

The SPORTSMART study: a pilot randomised controlled trial of sexually transmitted infection screening interventions targeting men in football club settings.

Sebastian S Fuller, Catherine H Mercer, Andrew J Copas, John Saunders, Lorna J Sutcliffe, Jackie A Cassell, Graham Hart, Anne M Johnson, Tracy E Roberts, Louise J Jackson and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Sexually transmitted infections, 2015. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Exploring the need for sexually transmitted infection education among university student athletes in Saskatchewan.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada
    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

12 authors.

Sebastian S FullerQueen Mary University of London, UK (where the research took place).
Catherine H MercerCentre for Sexual Health and HIV Research, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew J CopasCentre for Sexual Health and HIV Research, University College London, London, UK.
John SaundersBlizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
Lorna J SutcliffeBlizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
Jackie A CassellDivision of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Graham HartFaculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Anne M JohnsonDepartment of Infection & Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Tracy E RobertsDepartment of Health Economics Facility, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Louise J JacksonDepartment of Health Economics Facility, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Pamela MuniinaCentre for Sexual Health and HIV Research, University College London, London, UK.
Claudia S EstcourtBlizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10208
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUptake of chlamydia screening by men in England has been substantially lower than by women. Non-traditional settings such as sports clubs offer opportunities to widen access. Involving people who are not medically trained to promote screening could optimise acceptability.

methodsWe developed two interventions to explore the acceptability and feasibility of urine-based sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeting men in football clubs. We tested these interventions in a pilot cluster randomised control trial. Six clubs were randomly allocated, two to each of three trial arms: team captain-led and poster STI screening promotion; sexual health adviser-led and poster STI screening promotion; and poster-only STI screening promotion (control/comparator). Primary outcome was test uptake.

resultsAcross the three arms, 153 men participated in the trial and 90 accepted the offer of screening (59%, 95% CI 35% to 79%). Acceptance rates were broadly comparable across the arms: captain-led: 28/56 (50%); health professional-led: 31/46 (67%); and control: 31/51 (61%). However, rates varied appreciably by club, precluding formal comparison of arms. No infections were identified. Process evaluation confirmed that interventions were delivered in a standardised way but the control arm was unintentionally 'enhanced' by some team captains actively publicising screening events.

conclusionsCompared with other UK-based community screening models, uptake was high but gaining access to clubs was not always easy. Use of sexual health advisers and team captains to promote screening did not appear to confer additional benefit over a poster-promoted approach. Although the interventions show potential, the broader implications of this strategy for UK male STI screening policy require further investigation.

Indexed as

AthletesAdolescentAdultBehavior TherapyDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEnglandFootballHumansMaleMass ScreeningSexually Transmitted DiseasesUnited KingdomYoung AdultCHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATISGONORRHOEAINTERVENTION STUDIESMENSCREENING

Identifiers

PMID25512674
PMCPMC4345976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.