ArticleInternational journal of STD & AIDS2024
Who accessed STI testing in Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic and how: Findings from Natsal-COVID, a cross-sectional quasi-representative survey.
Article in International journal of STD & AIDS, 2024. 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.
- General practice chlamydia testing: a qualitative study of staff approaches using behavioural change theory.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, online sexual health service delivery increased across Britain. We investigated inequalities in STI testing access and methods of access during the first year of the pandemic.
methodsNatsal-COVID, an online-survey of people 18-59 years in Britain, explored sexual health experiences in the first year of the pandemic. We describe the socio-demographics of participants who used STI testing services and compare those who reported being "online service users", defined as using services with no direct clinician interactions (regardless of whether they also used other methods), with those who were exclusively "other service users", defined as face-to-face, telephone, or video calls.
results246/6,064 participants (4.2%) reported STI testing between 03/2020-03/2021. Of those, 35.8% (95%CI 29.2-42.8) used online services. Online service users (compared to other service users) were more often white (74.9% (62.2-84.4) versus 68.5% (59.4-76.3)), less often had anxiety (39.0% (28.4-50.9) versus 57.2% (48.4-65.6)) and less often had disabilities (25.8% (16.8-37.4) versus 48.1% (39.4-56.9)). Among women (only), online users were more often in good health (91.4% (81.3-96.2) versus 69.3% (57.4-79.2)).
conclusionsMore than one third of STI testers used online services during this period. Differences exist in the characteristics of people accessing online versus other testing services. These data suggest that online services were more likely to be accessed by groups with typically lower risk of poor sexual health (white and in good health). Further investigation is needed, especially if online services are the only option offered, as differences in ability to access services could widen inequalities.
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.