ArticleFamily practice2023
Testing for sexually transmitted infection: who and where? A data linkage study using population and provider data in the Rotterdam area, the Netherlands.
Article in Family practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of reduced chlamydia testing on STI testing and provider preferences in the Netherlands: an experimental vignette study.Sexually transmitted infections · 2026Article
- The roles of the general practitioner and sexual health centre in HIV testing: comparative insights and impact on HIV incidence rates in the Rotterdam area, the Netherlands - a cross-sectional population-based study.BMC public health · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the Netherlands, insight into sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and characteristics of those tested by general practitioners (GPs) and sexual health centres (SHC) is limited. This is partly due to lacking registration of socio-demographics at GPs. We aimed to fill this gap by linking different registers.
methodsIndividual STI testing data of GPs and SHC were linked to population register data (aged ≥15 years, Rotterdam area, 2015-2019). We reported population-specific STI positivity, proportion STI tested, and GP-SHC testing rate comparison using negative binomial generalised additive models. Factors associated with STI testing were determined by the provider using logistic regression analyses with generalised estimating equations.
resultsThe proportion of STI tested was 2.8% for all residents and up to 9.8% for younger and defined migrant groups. STI positivity differed greatly by subgroup and provider (3.0-35.3%). Overall, GPs performed 3 times more STI tests than the SHC. The smallest difference in GP-SHC testing rate was for 20-24-year-olds (SHC key group). Younger age, non-western migratory background, lower household income, living more urbanised, and closer to a testing site were associated with STI testing by either GP or SHC. GPs and SHC partly test different groups: GPs test women and lower-educated more often, the SHC men and middle/higher educated.
conclusionsThis study highlights GPs' important role in STI testing. The GPs' role in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of STIs needs continued support and strengthening. Inter-professional exchange and collaboration between GP and SHC is warranted to reach vulnerable groups.
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.