ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2017
Missed Opportunities for Chlamydia Screening in Title X Family Planning Clinics.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Control to Crisis: The Resurgence of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnnual chlamydia (CT) screening is recommended for women younger than 25 years, yet less than half of young women seeking health care are screened annually. We analyzed Title X family planning service data from the Northwest United States to assess factors associated with missed opportunities for CT screening. Our primary hypothesis was screening coverage is higher during annual preventive health visits compared to other visit types. Study objectives were: (1) identify gaps in screening coverage by patient demographics, visit characteristics, and clinic measures; and (2) examine the association between visit type and CT screening by controlling for other covariates and stratifying by state.
methodsCalendar year 2011 Title X visit records (n = 180,856) were aggregated to the patient level (n = 112,926) to assess CT screening coverage by all characteristics. Screening variation was explored by bivariate and multivariate Poisson regression. Adjusted models for each state estimated association between comprehensive examination and screening controlling for confounders.
resultsClinic and visit characteristics were associated with CT screening. Coverage ranged from 45% in Washington to 80% in Alaska. Only 34% of patients visited for a routine comprehensive examination. Visit type was associated with screening; 75% of patients who had a comprehensive examination were screened versus 34% of those without a comprehensive examination (unadjusted PR, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.21). The association between comprehensive examination and CT screening varied significantly by state (interaction term, P < 0.001).
conclusionsMissed screening opportunities are common among women who access brief appointments for specific needs but do not seek routine preventive care, particularly in some states. Structural interventions may help address these systematically missed opportunities.
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.