ArticleJournal of community health2017
Improving STD Screening Rates on a University Campus.
Article in Journal of community health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Clinician Awareness of and Screening for Chagas Disease with an Educational Intervention.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
- Availability of Laboratory Diagnosis of Gonorrhoea and Its Meaning in Case Reporting in Shandong Province, China.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2023Article
- Knowledge and testing preferences forJournal of American college health : J of ACH · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gonorrhea and chlamydia infections have a high incidence among young adults. To increase screening rates among individuals aged 25 years of age and younger on a university campus, this quality improvement project was implemented to improve providers' knowledge of CDC guidelines through education. Education was provided to providers and staff members at a health clinic on a private residential university campus through informational sessions to increase knowledge of guideline-directed screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia. This education was coupled with a multifaceted approach for provider-reminder interventions: flagging patients in the EHR system that fall within the age group (25 years of age and younger) to generate an alert, patients completing a questionnaire while in the exam room, and identification of a project champion. Screening rates were evaluated during pre- and post-implementation phases to determine if a change in practice occurred among providers. Post-intervention revealed the average number of patients screened for gonorrhea and chlamydia was 65.85% (349/530). This change represented a marked increase from pre-intervention screening of 2% (11/405). The testing rate increased during the post-intervention phase to 17.86% (65/364), up from 7.90% (32/405) pre-implementation. Provider education on guideline-directed screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia increased screening among providers at a university health clinic. This intervention, combined with provider-reminder interventions, increased screening of patients, leading to an increased testing rate for gonorrhea and chlamydia.
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.