ArticleBMJ public health2026
Evaluating the impact of remote care in sexual and reproductive health services on outcomes and health inequalities in the UK: a retrospective observational study of routine service-level data.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Remote clinical consultations and online postal self-sampling are increasingly established components of sexual and reproductive healthcare provision in the UK. However, there are concerns that uptake and outcomes of remote healthcare may differ by demographic groups and so increase health inequalities. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of service-level data within two case study areas (CSAs) in England and one in Wales. Primary outcomes were treatment within 6 weeks among chlamydia cases and uptake of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) among women attending for contraceptive care. Outcomes were compared between 2019 and 2022, during which remote care use increased in all CSAs. We evaluated overall change within each CSA, and whether changes differed by age, gender and sexual behaviour, ethnicity and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Results: Analyses included 446 819 individuals across 2019-2022. Comparing 2019 to 2022, there was a small reduction in chlamydia treatment success in CSA-A (relative risk (RR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) and small increases in CSA-B (1.12, 1.10 to 1.14) and CSA-C (1.07, 1.03 to 1.12). Changes did not significantly vary by ethnicity or IMD, but treatment success dropped for men who have sex exclusively with women in CSA-A (RR 0.88 vs 0.98 in women) and increased for 16-34 year-olds in CSA-B (p=0.001 across groups). LARC uptake decreased in CSA-A (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.60) but increased in CSA-B (1.18, 1.15 to 1.21) and CSA-C (1.06, 1.01 to 1.11) as proportion of contraceptive care episodes, although total LARC fittings fell in all CSAs; reduction was greater in women aged 35-49 in CSA-A (p<0.001) and increase was greater in women 16-34 in CSA-B (p<0.001). There was limited evidence for differences by ethnicity or IMD. Conclusions: The study areas varied in their implementation of remote care and healthcare outcomes, but we found no strong evidence that changes in provision of remote care were associated with increases in health inequity.
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.