Cargando…
A pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings
BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening for chlamydia in non-clinical settings is becoming more common, but little is known about which settings (or events) offer the best return on investment. We measured the relative efficiency of each screening site and event during the conduct of a chlamydia educati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3420309/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-341 |
_version_ | 1782240825869074432 |
---|---|
author | Bowden, Francis J Currie, Marian J Todkill, Muareen Schmidt, Mathias Webeck, Sue Del Rosario, Rendry Bavinton, Tim Tyson, Alexandra |
author_facet | Bowden, Francis J Currie, Marian J Todkill, Muareen Schmidt, Mathias Webeck, Sue Del Rosario, Rendry Bavinton, Tim Tyson, Alexandra |
author_sort | Bowden, Francis J |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening for chlamydia in non-clinical settings is becoming more common, but little is known about which settings (or events) offer the best return on investment. We measured the relative efficiency of each screening site and event during the conduct of a chlamydia education and screening outreach program which used a cash incentive to encourage participation (SOC2). METHODS: SOC2 staff identified sites and organised events in non-clinical sites where young people were likely to congregate. 16 to 30 years olds were offered chlamydia education and a cash reward of AUD10 if they chose to be screened for chlamydia. Data collected during these activities were used to calculated five measures of efficiency: i) screening yield’ (proportion of people providing a sample), ii) proportion of positive tests, iii) ‘event screening tempo’ (number of screens performed for every hour that screening is offered), iv) ‘staff hour screening tempo’ (number of screens performed per hour of staff time) and v) ‘chlamydia detection tempo’ (number of positive tests detected per hour of screening). RESULTS: 3011 people (71% male) were screened during 18 events at 10 venues. Overall ‘screening yield’ was 43.8% (range: 20–77%) and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.1–3.0) of tests were positive (by event range 1–3%). Overall, the ‘event screening tempo’ was 23.7 screens per event hour (range 8.0–79.0), the ‘staff hour screening tempo’ was 6.5 screens per staff hour and the ‘chlamydia detection tempo’ was 0.4 positive tests per hour (range: 0–1.75). CONCLUSION: Assessing the efficiency of screening sites and programs should be integral to their conduct. We suggest the use of five measures to enable pragmatic assessment of any screening program. We introduce the terms ‘event screening tempo’, ‘staff hour screening tempo’ and ‘chlamydia detection tempo’ to describe three of these simple measures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3420309 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34203092012-08-17 A pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings Bowden, Francis J Currie, Marian J Todkill, Muareen Schmidt, Mathias Webeck, Sue Del Rosario, Rendry Bavinton, Tim Tyson, Alexandra BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening for chlamydia in non-clinical settings is becoming more common, but little is known about which settings (or events) offer the best return on investment. We measured the relative efficiency of each screening site and event during the conduct of a chlamydia education and screening outreach program which used a cash incentive to encourage participation (SOC2). METHODS: SOC2 staff identified sites and organised events in non-clinical sites where young people were likely to congregate. 16 to 30 years olds were offered chlamydia education and a cash reward of AUD10 if they chose to be screened for chlamydia. Data collected during these activities were used to calculated five measures of efficiency: i) screening yield’ (proportion of people providing a sample), ii) proportion of positive tests, iii) ‘event screening tempo’ (number of screens performed for every hour that screening is offered), iv) ‘staff hour screening tempo’ (number of screens performed per hour of staff time) and v) ‘chlamydia detection tempo’ (number of positive tests detected per hour of screening). RESULTS: 3011 people (71% male) were screened during 18 events at 10 venues. Overall ‘screening yield’ was 43.8% (range: 20–77%) and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.1–3.0) of tests were positive (by event range 1–3%). Overall, the ‘event screening tempo’ was 23.7 screens per event hour (range 8.0–79.0), the ‘staff hour screening tempo’ was 6.5 screens per staff hour and the ‘chlamydia detection tempo’ was 0.4 positive tests per hour (range: 0–1.75). CONCLUSION: Assessing the efficiency of screening sites and programs should be integral to their conduct. We suggest the use of five measures to enable pragmatic assessment of any screening program. We introduce the terms ‘event screening tempo’, ‘staff hour screening tempo’ and ‘chlamydia detection tempo’ to describe three of these simple measures. BioMed Central 2012-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3420309/ /pubmed/22571184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-341 Text en Copyright ©2012 Bowden et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Bowden, Francis J Currie, Marian J Todkill, Muareen Schmidt, Mathias Webeck, Sue Del Rosario, Rendry Bavinton, Tim Tyson, Alexandra A pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings |
title | A pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings |
title_full | A pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings |
title_fullStr | A pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings |
title_full_unstemmed | A pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings |
title_short | A pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings |
title_sort | pragmatic assessment of the relative efficiency of outreach chlamydia screening events conducted in non-clinical settings |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3420309/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-341 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bowdenfrancisj apragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT curriemarianj apragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT todkillmuareen apragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT schmidtmathias apragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT webecksue apragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT delrosariorendry apragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT bavintontim apragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT tysonalexandra apragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT bowdenfrancisj pragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT curriemarianj pragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT todkillmuareen pragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT schmidtmathias pragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT webecksue pragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT delrosariorendry pragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT bavintontim pragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings AT tysonalexandra pragmaticassessmentoftherelativeefficiencyofoutreachchlamydiascreeningeventsconductedinnonclinicalsettings |