ArticleSexually transmitted infections2026
Impact of reduced chlamydia testing on STI testing and provider preferences in the Netherlands: an experimental vignette study.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2026. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe restrictive chlamydia testing guidelines for asymptomatic individuals at Dutch sexual health centres (SHCs) since January 2025 may influence perceptions and attitudes towards testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). This study aimed to assess the potential impact of this guideline change on STI testing preferences among young people and to examine determinants and underlying motivations of these preferences.
methodsHeterosexuals aged 16-34 in the Netherlands, recruited via social media and SHCs, completed an online survey (April-June 2024). STI testing preferences (SHCs, general practitioners (GPs), commercial self-sampling tests or not testing) before and after the anticipated guideline change were assessed in a hypothetical scenario involving condomless sex with a new partner without having STI-related symptoms after. Participants initially preferring SHCs were grouped according to post-change preferences. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with preferences and thematic analysis to explore motivations.
resultsOf 1179 participants, 68% (95% CI 65% to 71%) initially preferred SHCs as a testing provider. After the guideline change, among this group, 24.2% (95% CI 21% to 27%) still preferred SHCs, 51.5% (95% CI 48% to 55%) switched to a preference for testing at GPs, 18% (95% CI 16% to 21%) to self-sampling and 6.2% (95% CI 5% to 8%) opted out. Switching to GPs was associated with younger age and high self-efficacy and control beliefs; choosing self-sampling with older age (>24) and university education; and opting out with inconsistent condom use and low health goals compared with preferring SHCs. Motivations included test costs, symptom absence and perceived chlamydia prevalence.
conclusionChanging chlamydia testing guidelines at SHCs may cause a shift in testing preferences to GPs or self-sampling and may discourage some from testing. These findings underscore the need for targeted communication and ongoing monitoring of STI testing behaviour to maintain STI testing uptake and are relevant for countries facing similar changes to chlamydia testing guidelines.
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.