ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)2021
Electronic Health Record Reminders for Chlamydia Screening in an American Indian Population.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved Diabetes Screening for Women After Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- Physician preferences for an electronic lung cancer screening decision aid.The American journal of managed care · 2024Article
- Concurrent Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Among Patients Tested for Mpox at a Tertiary Healthcare System.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Leveraging the Electronic Health Record to Implement Emergency Department Delirium Screening.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Electronic Health Record-Integrated Clinical Decision Support for Clinicians Serving Populations Facing Health Care Disparities: Literature Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022Review
- Creating a path forward: understanding the context of sexual health and sexually transmitted infections in American Indian/Alaska Native populations – a review.Sexual health · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIndian Health Service (IHS) screening rates for
methodsWe conducted our intervention from November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2015, at an IHS facility in the Southwest. We implemented algorithms that queried database values to assess chlamydia screening performance in 6 clinical departments. We presented data on the screening performance of clinical departments and health care providers (de-identified) in the awareness presentations. We re-queried database values 1 and 2 years after implementation of the EHR reminder intervention to evaluate before-and-after screening rates, comparing data among all patients and among female patients only.
resultsWe found small, sustained relative increases in chlamydia screening rates during the 2012-2015 evaluation period: 20.8% pre-intervention to 24.9% and 24.2% one and two years postintervention, respectively, across all patients; 32.3% preintervention to 36.6% and 35.6% one and two years postintervention, respectively, among female patients. Increases in clinical department-specific screening rates varied and were most prominent in internal medicine (35.8% preintervention to peak 65.8% postintervention). The 1 clinic (obstetrics-gynecology) that did not receive an awareness presentation showed a consistent downward trend in screening rates, although absolute rates were consistently higher in that clinic than in other clinics.
conclusionsAwareness presentations that offer feedback to health care providers on screening performance, heighten provider awareness of the importance of chlamydia screening, and promote development of novel provider-initiated screening protocols may help to increase screening rates when combined with EHR reminders.
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.