Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30700477›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Young people's preferences for the use of emerging technologies for asymptomatic regular chlamydia testing and management: a discrete choice experiment in England.

Sue Eaton, Deborah Biggerstaff, Stavros Petrou, Leeza Osipenko, Jo Gibbs, Claudia S Estcourt, Tariq Sadiq, Ala Szczepura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Correlates of STI Testing Among US Young Adults: Opportunities for Prevention.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Sue EatonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1069-9831
Deborah BiggerstaffWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9613-0197
Stavros PetrouWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3121-6050
Leeza OsipenkoScientific Advice, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2086-129X
Jo GibbsResearch Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5696-0260
Claudia S EstcourtDepartment of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5523-5630
Tariq SadiqApplied Diagnostic Research and Evaluation Unit, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0608-3818
Ala SzczepuraEnterprise and Innovation Group, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6244-9872

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilChief Scientist OfficeDepartment of HealthMedical Research Council G0501681Medical Research Council G0700452Medical Research Council G0901608Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo undertake a comprehensive assessment of the strength of preferences among young people for attributes of emerging technologies for testing and treatment of asymptomatic chlamydia.

designDiscrete choice experiment (DCE) with sequential mixed methods design. A staged approach to selection of attributes/levels included two literature reviews, focus groups with young people aged 16-24 years (n=21), experts' review (n=13) and narrative synthesis. Cognitive testing was undertaken to pilot and adapt the initial questionnaire. Online national panel was used for final DCE survey to maximise generalisability. Analysis of questionnaire responses used multinomial logit models and included validity checks.

settingEngland.

participants1230 young people aged 16-24 from a national online panel (completion rate 73%). OUTCOME MEASURES: ORs for service attributes in relation to reference levels.

resultsThe strongest attribute influencing preferences was chlamydia test accuracy (OR 3.24, 95% CI 3.13 to 3.36), followed by time to result (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.71 to 1.91). Respondents showed a preference for remote chlamydia testing options (self-testing, self-sampling and postal testing) over attendance at a testing location. For accessing treatment following a positive test result, there was a general preference for online (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.28) versus traditional general practitioner (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24) or pharmacy (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.22) over clinic services. For accessing a healthcare professional and receipt of antibiotics, there was little difference in preferences between options.

conclusionsBoth test accuracy and very short intervals between testing and results were important factors for young people when deciding whether to undergo a routine test for asymptomatic chlamydia, with test accuracy being more important. These findings should assist technology developers, policymakers, commissioners and service providers to optimise technology adoption in service redesign, although use of an online panel may limit generalisability of findings to other populations.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceAdolescentAsymptomatic DiseasesChlamydia InfectionsEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSelf CareSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultChlamydia trachomatisdigital healthdiscrete choice experimentonline clinical care pathwaypatient preferencessexually transmitted infections

Identifiers

PMID30700477
PMCPMC6352830

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.