Cargando…

The Influence of Two Different Invitation Letters on Chlamydia Testing Participation: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, screening for chlamydia (the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection worldwide) is a relatively simple and free procedure. Via an invitation letter sent by the public health services (PHS), people are asked to visit a website to request a test kit. They can then...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: ten Hoor, Gill, Hoebe, Christian JPA, van Bergen, Jan EAM, Brouwers, Elfi EHG, Ruiter, Robert AC, Kok, Gerjo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications Inc. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3936267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24480721
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2907
_version_ 1782305294696579072
author ten Hoor, Gill
Hoebe, Christian JPA
van Bergen, Jan EAM
Brouwers, Elfi EHG
Ruiter, Robert AC
Kok, Gerjo
author_facet ten Hoor, Gill
Hoebe, Christian JPA
van Bergen, Jan EAM
Brouwers, Elfi EHG
Ruiter, Robert AC
Kok, Gerjo
author_sort ten Hoor, Gill
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, screening for chlamydia (the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection worldwide) is a relatively simple and free procedure. Via an invitation letter sent by the public health services (PHS), people are asked to visit a website to request a test kit. They can then do a chlamydia test at home, send it anonymously to a laboratory, and, within two weeks, they can review their test results online and be treated by their general practitioner or the PHS. Unfortunately, the participation rates are low and the process is believed to be not (cost-) effective. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess whether the low participation rate of screening for chlamydia at home, via an invitation letter asking to visit a website and request a test kit, could be improved by optimizing the invitation letter through systematically applied behavior change theories and evidence. METHODS: The original letter and a revised letter were randomly sent out to 13,551 citizens, 16 to 29 years old, in a Dutch municipality. Using behavior change theories, the revised letter sought to increase motivation to conduct chlamydia screening tests. The revised letter was tailored to beliefs that were found in earlier studies: risk perception, advantages and disadvantages (attitude), moral norm, social influence, and response- and self-efficacy. Revisions to the new letter also sought to avoid possible unwanted resistance caused when people feel pressured, and included prompts to trigger the desired behavior. RESULTS: No significant differences in test package requests were found between the two letters. There were also no differences between the original and revised letters in the rates of returned tests (11.80%, 581/4922 vs 11.07%, 549/4961) or positive test results (4.8%, 23/484 vs 4.1%, 19/460). It is evident that the new letter did not improve participation compared to the original letter. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that the approach of inviting the target population through a letter does not lead to higher participation rates for chlamydia screening. Other approaches have to be developed and pilot tested.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3936267
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher JMIR Publications Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39362672014-02-27 The Influence of Two Different Invitation Letters on Chlamydia Testing Participation: Randomized Controlled Trial ten Hoor, Gill Hoebe, Christian JPA van Bergen, Jan EAM Brouwers, Elfi EHG Ruiter, Robert AC Kok, Gerjo J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, screening for chlamydia (the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection worldwide) is a relatively simple and free procedure. Via an invitation letter sent by the public health services (PHS), people are asked to visit a website to request a test kit. They can then do a chlamydia test at home, send it anonymously to a laboratory, and, within two weeks, they can review their test results online and be treated by their general practitioner or the PHS. Unfortunately, the participation rates are low and the process is believed to be not (cost-) effective. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess whether the low participation rate of screening for chlamydia at home, via an invitation letter asking to visit a website and request a test kit, could be improved by optimizing the invitation letter through systematically applied behavior change theories and evidence. METHODS: The original letter and a revised letter were randomly sent out to 13,551 citizens, 16 to 29 years old, in a Dutch municipality. Using behavior change theories, the revised letter sought to increase motivation to conduct chlamydia screening tests. The revised letter was tailored to beliefs that were found in earlier studies: risk perception, advantages and disadvantages (attitude), moral norm, social influence, and response- and self-efficacy. Revisions to the new letter also sought to avoid possible unwanted resistance caused when people feel pressured, and included prompts to trigger the desired behavior. RESULTS: No significant differences in test package requests were found between the two letters. There were also no differences between the original and revised letters in the rates of returned tests (11.80%, 581/4922 vs 11.07%, 549/4961) or positive test results (4.8%, 23/484 vs 4.1%, 19/460). It is evident that the new letter did not improve participation compared to the original letter. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that the approach of inviting the target population through a letter does not lead to higher participation rates for chlamydia screening. Other approaches have to be developed and pilot tested. JMIR Publications Inc. 2014-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3936267/ /pubmed/24480721 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2907 Text en ©Gill ten Hoor, Christian JPA Hoebe, Jan EAM van Bergen, Elfi EHG Brouwers, Robert AC Ruiter, Gerjo Kok. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 30.01.2014. 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, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
ten Hoor, Gill
Hoebe, Christian JPA
van Bergen, Jan EAM
Brouwers, Elfi EHG
Ruiter, Robert AC
Kok, Gerjo
The Influence of Two Different Invitation Letters on Chlamydia Testing Participation: Randomized Controlled Trial
title The Influence of Two Different Invitation Letters on Chlamydia Testing Participation: Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full The Influence of Two Different Invitation Letters on Chlamydia Testing Participation: Randomized Controlled Trial
title_fullStr The Influence of Two Different Invitation Letters on Chlamydia Testing Participation: Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed The Influence of Two Different Invitation Letters on Chlamydia Testing Participation: Randomized Controlled Trial
title_short The Influence of Two Different Invitation Letters on Chlamydia Testing Participation: Randomized Controlled Trial
title_sort influence of two different invitation letters on chlamydia testing participation: randomized controlled trial
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3936267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24480721
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2907
work_keys_str_mv AT tenhoorgill theinfluenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hoebechristianjpa theinfluenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanbergenjaneam theinfluenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT brouwerselfiehg theinfluenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ruiterrobertac theinfluenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kokgerjo theinfluenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT tenhoorgill influenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hoebechristianjpa influenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanbergenjaneam influenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT brouwerselfiehg influenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ruiterrobertac influenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kokgerjo influenceoftwodifferentinvitationlettersonchlamydiatestingparticipationrandomizedcontrolledtrial