Evaluation design of a systematic, selective, internet-based, Chlamydia screening implementation in the Netherlands, 2008-2010: implications of first results for the analysis

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Ingrid VF van den Broek (1)
  Christian JPA Hoebe (2)
  Jan EAM van Bergen (3)
  Elfi EHG Brouwers (2)
  Eva M de Feijter (3)
  Johannes SA Fennema (4)
  Hannelore M G?tz (5)
  Rik H Koekenbier (4)
  Sander M van Ravesteijn (5)
  Eline LM Op de Coul (1)
  
• 刊名：BMC Infectious Diseases
• 出版年：2010
• 出版时间：December 2010
• 年：2010
• 卷：10
• 期：1
• 全文大小：1767KB
• 参考文献：1. Rekart M, Brunham RC: Epidemiology of chlamydial infection: are we losing ground? / Sex Transm Infect 2008, 84 (2) : 87-1. CrossRef
  2. Nelson H, Helfand M: Screening for chlamydial infection. / Am J Prev Med 2001, 20 (3 Suppl) : 95-07. CrossRef
  3. Low N, Bender N, Nartey L, Shang A, Stephenson JM: Effectiveness of Chlamydia screening: systematic review. / Int J Epidemiol 2009, 38: 435-48. CrossRef
  4. Scholes D, Stergachis A, Heidrich FE, Andrilla H, Holmes KK, Stamm WE: Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical Chlamydia infection. / New Engl J Med 1996, 334: 1362-366. CrossRef
  5. ?stergaard L, Andersen B, M?ller JK, Olesen F: Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women; a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study. / Clin Infect Dis 2000, 31: 951-57. CrossRef
  6. Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, for the Chlamydia Screening Studies Project Group, / et al.: Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection. / Health Technology Assessment 2007., 11 (8) :
  7. van Bergen J, G?tz HM, Richardus JH, Hoebe CJ, Broer J, Coenen AJ: Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. / Sex Transm Infect 2005, 81 (1) : 17-3. CrossRef
  8. Gezondheidsraad: Screenen op Chlamydia [Screening for Chlamydia]. / Gezondheidsraad rapport [Health Council Report] 2004., 07:
  9. Gezondheidsraad: Jaarbericht Gezondheidsonderzoek. / Den Haag Gezondheidsraad Publicatie [The Hague Health Council Publication] 2006., 10:
  10. van Bergen JEAM, Fennema JSA, Broek IVF, Brouwers EEHG, de Feijter EM, Hoebe CJPA, Koekenbier RH, Op de Coul ELM, 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. 2010, in press.
  11. Op de Coul ELM, Weenen TC, Sande MAB, Broek IVF, / et al.: Process evaluation of the Chlamydia Screening Implementation in the Netherlands: phase 1. [http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/210261006.html] / RIVM Report 210261006, Bilthoven 2009.
  12. G?tz HM, van Bergen JE, Veldhuijzen IK, Broer J, Hoebe CJ, Steyerberg EW, Coenen AJ, de Groot F, Verhooren MJ, van Schaik DT, / et al.: A prediction rule for selective screening of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. / Sex Transm Infect 2005, 81 (1) : 24-0. CrossRef
  13. Brown C, Lilford RJ: The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review. / BMC Medical Research Methodology 2006, 6: 54. CrossRef
  14. Koedijk F, Vriend HJ, van Veen MG, Op de Coul ELM, Broek IVF, van Sighem AI, Verheij RA, Sande MAB: Sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, in the Netherlands in 2008. / RIVM Annual Report 2009.
  15. Kretzschmar M, Welte R, Hoek JA, / et al.: Comparative model-based analysis of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis infections. / Am J Epidemiol 2001, 153: 90-01. CrossRef
  16. Kretzschmar M, Turner KME, Barton PM, Edmunds J, Low N: Predicting the population impact of chlamydia screening programmes: comparative mathematical modelling study. / Sex Transm Inf 2009, in press.
  17. Welte R, Kretzschmar M, Leidl R, Hoek JAR, Jager JC, Postma MJ: Cost-effectiveness of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based dynamic approach. / Sex Transm Dis 2000, 27: 518-29. CrossRef
  18. Welte R, Postma M, Leidl R, Kretzschmar M: Costs and effects of chlamydial screening: dynamic versus static modeling. / Sex Transm Dis 2005, 32: 474-83. CrossRef
  19. Andersen B, Gundgaard J, Kretzschmar M, Olsen J, Welte R, ?stergaard L: Prediction of costs, effectiveness, and disease control of a population based program using home sampling for diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis Infections. / Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2006, 33 (7) : 407-15. CrossRef
  20. van Valkengoed I, Boeke AJ, Brule AJ, Morré SA, Dekker JH, Meijer CJ, van Eijk JT: [Systematic home screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infections of asymptomatic men and women in family practice by means of mail-in urine samples]. / Ned TijdschrGeneeskd 1999, 27 (13) : 672-76.
  21. Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, McCarthy A, Sterne JA, Holloway A, Patel R, Sanford E, Morcom A, Horner P, Davey Smith G, Skidmore S, Herring A, Caul O, Hobbs FD, Egger M: Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. / BMJ 2005, 330 (7497) : 940. CrossRef
  22. LaMontagne S, Baster K, Emmet L, / et al.: Incidence and reinfection rates of genital chlamydia infection among women aged 16-4 years attending general practice, family planning and genitourinary medicine clinics in England: a prospective cohort study by the Chlamydia Recall Study Advisory Group. / Sex Transm Infect 2007, 83: 292-03. CrossRef
  23. Novak D, Karlsson RB: Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study. / Sex Transm Inf 2006, 82: 142-47. CrossRef
  24. G?tz HM, Veldhuijzen IK, van Bergen JE, Hoebe CJ, de Zwart O, Richardus JH, van Bergen JE, Broer J, Coenen AJ, Gotz HM, / et al.: Acceptability and consequences of screening for chlamydia trachomatis by home-based urine testing. / Sex Transm Dis 2005, 32 (9) : 557-62. CrossRef
  25. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/10/89/prepub
  
• 作者单位：Ingrid VF van den Broek (1)
  Christian JPA Hoebe (2)
  Jan EAM van Bergen (3)
  Elfi EHG Brouwers (2)
  Eva M de Feijter (3)
  Johannes SA Fennema (4)
  Hannelore M G?tz (5)
  Rik H Koekenbier (4)
  Sander M van Ravesteijn (5)
  Eline LM Op de Coul (1)
  
  1. Epidemiology & Surveillance Unit, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
  2. Department of Infectious Diseases, South Limburg Public Health Service, Geleen, The Netherlands
  3. STI AIDS Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  4. Cluster of Infectious Diseases, Department of Research, Online Research and Prevention Unit, Amsterdam Health Service, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  5. Division of Infectious Disease Control, Rotterdam Rijnmond Public Health Service, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  

文摘

Background A selective, systematic, Internet-based, Chlamydia Screening Implementation for 16 to 29-year-old residents started in three regions in the Netherlands in April 2008: in the cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam and a more rural region, South Limburg. This paper describes the evaluation design and discusses the implications of the findings from the first screening round for the analysis. The evaluation aims to determine the effects of screening on the population prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis after multiple screening rounds. Methods A phased implementation or 'stepped wedge design' was applied by grouping neighbourhoods (hereafter: clusters) into three random, risk-stratified blocks (A, B and C) to allow for impact analyses over time and comparison of prevalences before and after one or two screening rounds. Repeated simulation of pre- and postscreening Chlamydia prevalences was used to predict the minimum detectable decline in prevalence. Real participation and positivity rates per region, block, and risk stratum (high, medium, and low community risk) from the 1st year of screening were used to substantiate predictions. Results The results of the 1st year show an overall participation rate of 16% of 261,025 invitees and a positivity rate of 4.2%, with significant differences between regions and blocks. Prediction by simulation methods adjusted with the first-round results indicate that the effect of screening (minimal detectable difference in prevalence) may reach significance levels only if at least a 15% decrease in the Chlamydia positivity rate in the cities and a 25% decrease in the rural region after screening can be reached, and pre- and postscreening differences between blocks need to be larger. Conclusions With the current participation rates, the minimal detectable decline of Chlamydia prevalence may reach our defined significance levels at the regional level after the second screening round, but will probably not be significant between blocks of the stepped wedge design. Evaluation will also include other aspects and prediction models to obtain rational advice about future Chlamydia screening in the Netherlands.