Keeping participants on board: increasing uptake by automated respondent reminders in an Internet-based Chlamydia Screening in the Netherlands
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Nynke FB Dokkum (1)
Rik H Koekenbier (1)
Ingrid VF van den Broek (2)
Jan EAM van Bergen (3)
Elfi EHG Brouwers (4)
Johannes SA Fennema (1)
Hannelore M G?tz (5)
Christian JPA Hoebe (4)
Lydia L Pars (3)
Sander M van Ravesteijn (4)
Eline LM Op de Coul (2) - 关键词：Chlamydia trachomatis ; Screening ; The Netherlands ; Internet
- 刊名：BMC Public Health
- 出版年：2012
- 出版时间：December 2012
- 年：2012
- 卷：12
- 期：1
- 全文大小：392KB
- 参考文献：1. Schachter J: Chlamydial infections. / N Engl J Med 1978, 298:428-5. 490-5, 540-9 (in three parts) CrossRef
2. Op de Coul ELM, Weenen TC, van der Sande MAB, van den Broek IVF: Process evaluation of the Chlamydia Screening Implementation in the Netherlands: phase 1. Challenges and opportunities during preparation and first operational phase. In / RIVM Report 210261006. Bilthoven; 2009.
3. van Bergen JEAM, Fennema JSA, van den Broek IVF, Brouwers EEHG, de Feijter EM, Hoebe CJPA, Koekenbier RH, de Coul ELM Op, van Ravesteijn SM, G?tz HM: Rationale, design, and results of the first screening round of a comprehensive, register-based. Chlamydia screening implementation programme in the Netherlands. / BMC Infect Dis 2010, 10:293. CrossRef
4. van den Broek IVF, Hoebe CJPA, van Bergen JEAM, Brouwers EEHG, de Feijter EM, Fennema JSA, G?tz HM, Koekenbier RH, van Ravesteijn SM, Op de Coul ELM: Evaluation design of a systematic, selective, Internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation in the Netherlands, 2008-010: implications of first results for the analysis. / BMC Infect Dis 2010, 10:89. CrossRef
5. Greenland KE, Op de Coul ELM, van Bergen JEAM, Brouwers EEHG, Fennema JSA, G?tz HM, Hoebe CJPA, Koekenbier RH, Pars LL, van Ravesteijn SM, van den Broek IVF: Acceptability of the internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation in the Netherlands and insights into non-response. / Sex Transm Dis 2011,38(6):467-74.
6. Op de Coul ELM, G?tz HM, van Bergen JEAM, Fennema JSA, Hoebe CJPA, Koekenbier RH, van Ravesteijn SM, Pars LL, van der Sande MAB, van den Broek IVF: Who participates in the Dutch Chlamydia Screening? A study on demographic and behavioral correlates of participation and positivity. / Sex Transm Dis 39(2):97-03.
7. G?tz HM, van Bergen JE, Veldhuijzen IK, Hoebe CJ, Broer J, Coenen AJ, de Groot F, Verhooren MJ, van Schaik DT, Richardus JH: Lessons learned from a population-based chlamydia screening pilot. / Int J STD AIDS 2006,17(12):826-30. CrossRef
8. Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, / et al.: Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevention of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. / BMJ 2005, 330:940. CrossRef
9. Novak DP, Karlsson RB: Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study. / Sex Transm Infect 2006, 82:142-47. CrossRef
10. Gaydos CA, Dwyer K, Barnes M, / et al.: Internet-based screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to reach non-clinic populations with mailed self-administered vaginal swabs. / Sex Transm Dis 2006, 33:451-57. CrossRef
11. Scholes D, Heidrich FE, Yarbro P, / et al.: Population-based outreach for chlamydia screening in men: Results from a randomized trial. / Sex Transm Dis 2007, 34:837-39. CrossRef
12. Goulet V, de Barbeyrac B, Raherison S, Prudhomme M, Semaille C, Warszawski J: Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis: results from the first national population-based survey in France. / Sex Transm Infect 2010,86(4):263-70. CrossRef
13. Walker J, Walker S, Fairley C, Gunn J, Pirotta M, Gurrin L, Carter R, Hocking J: Computer reminders for chlamydia screening in general practice: A randomised controlled trial. / Sex Transm Dis 2010,37(7):445-50.
14. Chlamydia Screening Implementation Netherlands. Impact evaluation and cost effectiveness In / RIVM report 210261008/2010. Bilthoven; 2010.
15. Koekenbier RH, Davidovich U, van Leent EJ, Thiesbrummel HF, Fennema HS: Online-mediated syphilis testing: feasibility, efficacy, and usage. / Sex Transm Dis 2008,35(8):764-69. CrossRef
16. Vaughan D, O'Connell E, Cormican M, / et al.: 'Pee-in-a-pot': acceptability and uptake of on-site chlamydia screening in a student population in the Republic of Ireland. / BMC Infect Dis 2010, 10:32. CrossRef
17. Sacks-Davis R, Gold J, Aitken CK, Hellard ME: Home-based chlamydia testing of young people attending a music festival - who will pee and post? / BMC Publ Health 2010, 10:376. CrossRef
18. Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts TE, / et al.: Cross-sectional population-based survey of coverage and uptake of chlamydia testing and chlamydia prevalence. In Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infectio . / Health Technol Assess 2007,11(8):15-3.
19. Kalma LL, Koekenbier RH, Zuure FR, Davidovich U: Why individuals do not return their requested Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) home collection kit: results from a qualitative study. [abstract]. In / ISSTDR congress. Quebec, Canada; 2011.
20. Menon-Johansson AS, McNaught F, Mandalia S, Sullivan AK: Texting decreases the time to treatment for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. / Sex Transm Infect 2006,82(1):49-1. CrossRef
21. Bilardi JE, Fairley CK, Hopkins CA, Hocking JS, Sze JK, Chen MY: Let them know: evaluation of an online partner notification service for Chlamydia that offers email and SMS messaging. / Sex Transm Dis 2010, 37:563-65. CrossRef
22. Lim MSC, Hocking JS, Hellard ME, / et al.: SMS STI: a review of the uses of mobile phone text messaging in sexual health. / Int J STD AIDS 2008, 19:287-90. CrossRef
23. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/176/prepub - 作者单位：Nynke FB Dokkum (1)
Rik H Koekenbier (1)
Ingrid VF van den Broek (2)
Jan EAM van Bergen (3)
Elfi EHG Brouwers (4)
Johannes SA Fennema (1)
Hannelore M G?tz (5)
Christian JPA Hoebe (4)
Lydia L Pars (3)
Sander M van Ravesteijn (4)
Eline LM Op de Coul (2)
1. Cluster of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam Health Service, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2. Epidemiology & Surveillance Unit, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
3. STI AIDS Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4. Department of Infectious Diseases, South Limburg Public Health Service, Geleen, The Netherlands
5. Department of Infectious Disease Control - division STI/HIV, GGD Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Municipal Public Health Service Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam-Rijnmond, The Netherlands - ISSN：1471-2458
文摘
Background Effectiveness of Chlamydia screening programs is determined by an adequate level of participation and the capturing of high-risk groups. This study aimed to evaluate the contribution of automated reminders by letter, email and short message service (SMS) on package request and sample return in an Internet-based Chlamydia screening among people aged 16 to 29 years in the Netherlands. Methods Individuals not responding to the invitation letter received a reminder letter after 1 month. Email- and SMS-reminders were sent to persons who did not return their sample. It was examined to what extent reminders enhanced the response rate (% of package requests) and participation rate (% of sample return). Sociodemographic and behavioural correlates of providing a cell phone number and participation after the reminder(s) were studied by logistic regression models. Results Of all respondents (screening round 1: 52,628, round 2: 41,729), 99% provided an email address and 72% a cell phone number. Forty-two percent of all package requests were made after the reminder letter. The proportion of invitees returning a sample increased significantly from 10% to 14% after email/SMS reminders (round 2: from 7% to 10%). Determinants of providing a cell-phone number were younger age (OR in 25-29 year olds versus 16-19 year olds = 0.8, 95%CI 0.8-0.9), non-Dutch (OR in Surinam/Antillean versus Dutch = 1.3, 95%CI 1.2-1.4, Turkish/Moroccan: 1.1, 95%CI 1.0-1.2, Sub Sahara African: 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.8, non-Western other 1.1, 95%CI 1.1-1.2), lower educational level (OR in high educational level versus low level = 0.8, 95%CI 0.7-0.9), no condom use during the last contact with a casual partner (OR no condom use versus condom use 1.2, 95%CI 1.1-1.3), younger age at first sexual contact (OR 19 years or older versus younger than 16: 0.7, 95%CI 0.6-0.8). Determinants for requesting a test-package after the reminder letter were male gender (OR female versus male 0.9 95%CI 0.8-0.9), non-Dutch (OR in Surinam/Antillean versus Dutch 1.3, 95%CI 1.2-1.4, Turkish/Moroccan: 1.4, 95%CI 1.3-1.5, Sub Sahara African: 1.4, 95%CI 1.2-1.5, non-Western other: 1.2, 95%CI 1.1-1.2), having a long-term steady partnership (long-term versus short-term.1.2 95%CI 1.1-1.3). Email/SMS reminders seem to have resulted in more men and people aged 25-29 years returning a sample. Conclusions Nearly all respondents (99.5%) were reachable by modern communication media. Response and participation rates increased significantly after the reminders. The reminder letters also seemed to result in reaching more people at risk. Incorporation of automated reminders in Internet-based (Chlamydia) screening programs is strongly recommended.