An observational study to evaluate three pilot programmes of retesting chlamydia-positive individuals within 6 months in the South West of England

Angel, Georgina; Horner, Patrick J; O’Brien, Norah; Sharp, Matt; Pye, Karl; Priestley, Cecilia; Macleod, John; Looker, Katharine J; Turner, Katherine Mary Elizabeth

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007455

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not find any evidence that retest positivity was different for active recall versus no active recall, meaning there is no evidence that active recall merely results in more negatives being tested. However, evidence from a retesting pilot in South-West England did show that those who retested without being actively recalled had higher chlamydia retest positivity than those who were actively recalled 8. Furthermore, the unpublished 2017 audit data showed a statistically significant increase in the retest rate for client-led retesting for 10–14 weeks compared with 2014 (Erna Buitendam, personal communication), which could make no active recall even more economical than shown here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Thus, for methods 1–4 and method 6, we incorporated the following parameters: retest uptake, the proportion who opt for postal testing, and the return rate of requested kits. Retest uptake for each of the six recall methods was fitted to overall retest rates from the 2014 NCSP audit,5 taking a value of 24% for the proportion of clients who opt for postal testing (also from the audit), and a value of 67% for the return rate of requested kits 8. For method 5, uptake was equivalent to overall retest rate and was simply the return rate of postal kits (10%) from the 2014 NCSP audit 5.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic evaluation of the cost of different methods of retesting chlamydia positive individuals in England

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) in England opportunistically screens eligible individuals for chlamydia infection. Retesting is recommended three3 months after treatment following a positive test result, but no guidance is given on how local areas should recall individuals for retesting. Here , we compare cost estimates for different recall methods to inform the optimal delivery of retesting programmes.DesignEconomic evaluation.SettingEngland.MethodsWe estimated the cost of chlamydia retesting for each of the six most commonly used recall methods in 2014 based on existing cost estimates of a chlamydia screen. Proportions accepting retesting, opting for retesting by post, returning postal testing kits and retesting positive were informed by 2014 NCSP audit data. Health professionals ‘sense-checked’ the costs.Primary and secondary outcomesCost and adjusted cost per chlamydia retest; cost and adjusted cost per chlamydia retest positive.ResultsWe estimated the cost of the chlamydia retest pathway, including treatment/follow-up call, to be between £45 and £70 per completed test. At the lower end, this compared favourably to the cost of a clinic-based screen. Cost per retest positive was £389–£607. After adjusting for incomplete uptake, and non-return of postal kits, the cost rose to £109–£289 per completed test (cost per retest positive: £946–£2,506). The most economical method in terms of adjusted cost per retest was no active recall as gains in retest rates with active recall did not outweigh the higher cost. Nurse-led client contact by phone was particularly uneconomical, as was sending out postal testing kits automatically.ConclusionsRetesting without active recall is more economical than more intensive methods such as recalling by phone and automatically sending out postal kits. If sending a short message service (SMS) could be automated, this could be the most economical way of delivering retesting. However, patient choice and local accessibility of services should be taken into consideration in planning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluation of the cost of different methods of retesting chlamydia positive individuals in England

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an evaluation of three pilot programs in England designed to increase re-testing for chlamydia through phone calls, text messages, and postal kits, among 778 AYAs, 39% were re-tested within 6 months, with females more likely to re-test than males. 91 Two studies from the Netherlands evaluated the role of text messages in AYA. In a study of patients aged 16–23 years, 30.6% of the study participants who received a text message reminder were re-tested compared with 9.2% of historical controls, with a higher re-test rate in women than men.…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of current guidelines and research on the management of sexually transmitted infections in adolescents and young adults

Gannon-Loew

Holland-Hall

2020

Therapeutic Advances in Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adolescents and young adults are at high risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Providers have the responsibility to accurately manage these infections to prevent medical complications and the spread of STIs. This article will review the epidemiology, screening recommendations, diagnostic tests, and treatment guidelines for STIs most commonly encountered in this population: Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Herpes simplex virus, and Trichomonas vaginalis, as well as the sexually associated infection bacterial vaginosis. This review will discuss ongoing research that explores ways to improve the management of STIs in adolescents and young adults.

show abstract

“… 11 Studies on the uptake of retesting often show a low uptake (range of reattendance between 17% and 89%). 12 , 13 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is the Optimal Time to Retest Patients With a Urogenital Chlamydia Infection? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Helm¹,

Koekenbier²,

Rooijen³

et al. 2018

Sexual Trans Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An observational study to evaluate three pilot programmes of retesting chlamydia-positive individuals within 6 months in the South West of England

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Economic evaluation of the cost of different methods of retesting chlamydia positive individuals in England

Economic evaluation of the cost of different methods of retesting chlamydia positive individuals in England

A review of current guidelines and research on the management of sexually transmitted infections in adolescents and young adults

What Is the Optimal Time to Retest Patients With a Urogenital Chlamydia Infection? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About