Cargando…

What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND: The UK National Chlamydia Screening Programme uses an opportunistic approach. Many programmes use campaigns to raise awareness of chlamydia screening in young people. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of campaigns on uptake of chlamydia screening in young people. METHODS: We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pearce, Emma, Jolly, Kate, Harris, Isobel Marion, Adriano, Ada, Moore, David, Price, Malcolm, Ross, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8785066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34446545
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2021-055142
_version_ 1784638883016736768
author Pearce, Emma
Jolly, Kate
Harris, Isobel Marion
Adriano, Ada
Moore, David
Price, Malcolm
Ross, Jonathan
author_facet Pearce, Emma
Jolly, Kate
Harris, Isobel Marion
Adriano, Ada
Moore, David
Price, Malcolm
Ross, Jonathan
author_sort Pearce, Emma
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The UK National Chlamydia Screening Programme uses an opportunistic approach. Many programmes use campaigns to raise awareness of chlamydia screening in young people. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of campaigns on uptake of chlamydia screening in young people. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of articles assessing the outcomes of community-based health-promotion campaigns to increase chlamydia screening in young people, their experiences of the campaigns and other facilitators and barriers to the conduct of the campaigns. We searched four databases for quantitative and qualitative studies with no language restrictions. MAIN RESULTS: From 10 329 records identified, 19 studies (20 articles) were included in the review: 14 quantitative, 2 qualitative and 3 mixed methods. All studies with quantitative outcomes were before-after study designs or interrupted time series. The prediction interval for relative change (RC) in test counts ranged from 0.95 to 1.56, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 1.22 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.30, 13 studies, I(2)=97%). For test positivity rate, 95% prediction interval was 0.59 to 1.48, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 0.93 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.07, 8 studies, I(2)=91.8%). Large variation in characteristics between studies precluded exploring outcomes by type of campaign components. Seven major qualitative themes to improve screening were identified: targeting of campaigns; quality of materials and message; language; anonymity; use of technology; relevance; and variety of testing options. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion campaigns aiming to increase chlamydia testing in those aged 15–24 years may show some effectiveness in increasing overall numbers of tests, however numbers of positive tests do not follow the same trend. Qualitative findings indicate that campaigns require clear, relevant messaging that displays the full range of testing options and assures anonymity in order to be effective.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8785066
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87850662022-02-04 What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review Pearce, Emma Jolly, Kate Harris, Isobel Marion Adriano, Ada Moore, David Price, Malcolm Ross, Jonathan Sex Transm Infect Review BACKGROUND: The UK National Chlamydia Screening Programme uses an opportunistic approach. Many programmes use campaigns to raise awareness of chlamydia screening in young people. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of campaigns on uptake of chlamydia screening in young people. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of articles assessing the outcomes of community-based health-promotion campaigns to increase chlamydia screening in young people, their experiences of the campaigns and other facilitators and barriers to the conduct of the campaigns. We searched four databases for quantitative and qualitative studies with no language restrictions. MAIN RESULTS: From 10 329 records identified, 19 studies (20 articles) were included in the review: 14 quantitative, 2 qualitative and 3 mixed methods. All studies with quantitative outcomes were before-after study designs or interrupted time series. The prediction interval for relative change (RC) in test counts ranged from 0.95 to 1.56, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 1.22 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.30, 13 studies, I(2)=97%). For test positivity rate, 95% prediction interval was 0.59 to 1.48, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 0.93 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.07, 8 studies, I(2)=91.8%). Large variation in characteristics between studies precluded exploring outcomes by type of campaign components. Seven major qualitative themes to improve screening were identified: targeting of campaigns; quality of materials and message; language; anonymity; use of technology; relevance; and variety of testing options. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion campaigns aiming to increase chlamydia testing in those aged 15–24 years may show some effectiveness in increasing overall numbers of tests, however numbers of positive tests do not follow the same trend. Qualitative findings indicate that campaigns require clear, relevant messaging that displays the full range of testing options and assures anonymity in order to be effective. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-02 2021-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8785066/ /pubmed/34446545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2021-055142 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review
Pearce, Emma
Jolly, Kate
Harris, Isobel Marion
Adriano, Ada
Moore, David
Price, Malcolm
Ross, Jonathan
What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review
title What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_full What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_fullStr What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_full_unstemmed What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_short What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_sort what is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? a mixed-methods systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8785066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34446545
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2021-055142
work_keys_str_mv AT pearceemma whatistheeffectivenessofcommunitybasedhealthpromotioncampaignsonchlamydiascreeninguptakeinyoungpeopleandwhatbarriersandfacilitatorshavebeenidentifiedamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT jollykate whatistheeffectivenessofcommunitybasedhealthpromotioncampaignsonchlamydiascreeninguptakeinyoungpeopleandwhatbarriersandfacilitatorshavebeenidentifiedamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT harrisisobelmarion whatistheeffectivenessofcommunitybasedhealthpromotioncampaignsonchlamydiascreeninguptakeinyoungpeopleandwhatbarriersandfacilitatorshavebeenidentifiedamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT adrianoada whatistheeffectivenessofcommunitybasedhealthpromotioncampaignsonchlamydiascreeninguptakeinyoungpeopleandwhatbarriersandfacilitatorshavebeenidentifiedamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT mooredavid whatistheeffectivenessofcommunitybasedhealthpromotioncampaignsonchlamydiascreeninguptakeinyoungpeopleandwhatbarriersandfacilitatorshavebeenidentifiedamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT pricemalcolm whatistheeffectivenessofcommunitybasedhealthpromotioncampaignsonchlamydiascreeninguptakeinyoungpeopleandwhatbarriersandfacilitatorshavebeenidentifiedamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT rossjonathan whatistheeffectivenessofcommunitybasedhealthpromotioncampaignsonchlamydiascreeninguptakeinyoungpeopleandwhatbarriersandfacilitatorshavebeenidentifiedamixedmethodssystematicreview