ArticleScientific reports2019
Assessing local chlamydia screening performance by combining survey and administrative data to account for differences in local population characteristics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reducing health inequalities requires improved understanding of the causes of variation. Local-level variation reflects differences in local population characteristics and health system performance. Identifying low- and high-performing localities allows investigation into these differences. We used Multilevel Regression with Post-stratification (MRP) to synthesise data from multiple sources, using chlamydia testing as our example. We used national probability survey data to identify individual-level characteristics associated with chlamydia testing and combined this with local-level census data to calculate expected levels of testing in each local authority (LA) in England, allowing us to identify LAs where observed chlamydia testing rates were lower or higher than expected, given population characteristics. Taking account of multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, student and cohabiting status, 5.4% and 3.5% of LAs had testing rates higher than expected for 95% and 99% posterior credible intervals, respectively; 60.9% and 50.8% had rates lower than expected. Residual differences between observed and MRP expected values were smallest for LAs with large proportions of non-white ethnic populations. London boroughs that were markedly different from expected MRP values (≥90% posterior exceedance probability) had actively targeted risk groups. This type of synthesis allows more refined inferences to be made at small-area levels than previously feasible.
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.