Table 3

Strategies and outcomes of home-based CT and NG screening studies published between Jan 2005-Jan 2011 classified by program type
Author, year Country Target group, recruitment Sex Tests Participation Specimen return Testing rate CT positive NG positive
Age rate % (95% CI) rate % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) %(95% CI)
Outreach Programs (n=7)
Datta, 2007 [31] US Screening within a national surveyA M/F; 6632 83.0 91.7 76.1 3.6% 0.5%
14-39 (82.2-83.8) (91.1-92.4) (75.2-77.0) (3.2-4.1) (0.4-0.8)
McCadden, 2005 [32] Brittain (UK) Randomly selected (national surveyB) M/F; 3608 71.1 99.4 70.7 2.0%
18-44 (69.8-72.3) (99.1-99.7) (69.4-71.9) (1.6-2.5)
Ghebremichael, 2009 [33] Tanzania Randomly selected households F; 1439 92.1 71.3 65.6 1.5% 0.2%
20-24 (90.9-93.2) (69.2-73.2) (63.6-67.6) (1.0-2.3) (0.0-0.6)
Forhan, 2009 [34] US Screening within a national survey A F; 793 94.6 3.9 C
14-19 (92.9-96.1)
Jennings, 2010 [35] US Randomly selected households; Monetary incentives M/F; 587 87.8 98.3 86.4
15-24 (85.1-90.2) (97.0-99.2) (83.6-88.9)
Adams, 2008 [36] Barbados Randomly selected (voter’s register) M/F; 402D 82.3% 100 82.3 11.3% 1.8%
18-35 (78.6-85.5) (99.1-100) (78.6-85.5) (8.4-14.9) (0.7-3.6)
Mir, 2009 [37] Pakistan Randomly selected households in a survey M; 256 0.0% 0.8%
16-45 (0.1-2.8)
Programs with PTKs sent on invitation acceptance (n=7)
*Van Bergen, 2010 [38] Nether-lands Participants form population register, PTKs requested through internet; Reminders M/F; 41638 20.2 78.9 16.0 4.2%
16-29 (20.1-20.4) (78.6-79.3) (15.8-16.1) (4.0-4.4)
Goulet, 2010 [39] France Randomly selected (national survey); Reminders M/F; 2580 76.3 68.3 52.0 1.7%
18-44 (75.0-77.4) (66.7-69.7) (50.6-53.4) (1.2-2.2)
*Anderson, 2010 [40] Denmark Randomly selected (county health service register) M/F; 912 20.3 7.0%
22-24 (19.1-21.5) (5.4-8.9)
Hocking, 2006 [41] Australia Random household sample (telephone directory) F; 657 53.9 E 67.1 36.2E 0.9%
18-35 (51.6-56.2) (64.1-70.0) (33.9-38.4) (0.3-2.0)
Domeika, 2007 [42] Sweden Randomly selected (population register, student register); Advertised M/F; 247 14.5 88.2 12.8 2.0%
19-23 (12.9-16.1) (83.8-91.7) (11.3-14.3) (0.7-4.7)
*Scholes, 2007 [43] US Participants from enrollees in a managed care plan; Reminders M; 105 3.6 1.0%
21-25 (2.9-4.3) (0.0-5.2)
Eggleston, 2005 [44] US Telephone accessible households; Monetary incentive; Reminders M/F; 86 86.0 2.3% 0.0%
18-35 (77.6-92.1) (0.3-8.1)
Programs with PTKs sent along with invitation (n=5)
Van Bergen, 2005 [45] Nether-lands Randomly selected (civilian registry); Reminders M/F; 8383 40.3** 39.9 2.0%
15-29 (39.7-41.0) (39.3-40.6) (1.7-2.3)
Low, 2007 [46] England Randomly selected (general practice lists); Reminders M/F; 4731 32.9** 23.9 4.6%
16-39 (32.1-33.7) (23.3-24.5) (4.0-5.3)
*Anderson, 2010 [40] Denmark Randomly selected (county health service register) M/F; 1296 28.8 28.8 6.2%
22-24 (27.5-30.1) (27.5-30.1) (4.9-7.6)
Uuskula, 2008 [47] Estonia Randomly selected (population registry) M/F; 486 34.8** 28.8 5.1%
18-35 (32.3-37.4) (26.7-31.0) (3.4-7.5)
*Scholes, 2007 [43] US Participants from enrollees in a managed care plan; Reminders M; 230 7.8 (6.9-8.9) 7.8 2.6%
21-25 (6.9-8.9) (1.0-5.6)
PTKs without invitation programs (n=4)
Gaydos, 2009 [48] US PTKs requested through the internet; Advertised F; 1203 32.4 9.1% 1.3%
>=14 (30.9-33.9) (7.5-10.8) (0.8-2.2)
Novak, 2006 [49] Sweden PTKs requested through the internet; Advertised M/F 906 62.5 5.2%
(59.9-65.0) (3.8-6.8)
Chai, 2010 [50] US PTKs requested through the internet; Advertised M; 512 31.1 12.8 0.8%
>=14 (28.9-33.4) (10.0-16.0) (0.02-2.0)
Martin, 2009 [51] Australia PTKs requested through the internet/phone, specimens dropped-off; Advertised M/F; 45 22.0
16-24 (16.5-28.2)
PTKs with in-person invitation programs (n=4)
Brabin, 2009 [52] England PTKs offered to women requesting EHC at pharmacies F; 264 46.4 19.7 9.1 9.1%
<=24 (44.6-48.3) (17.6-21.9) (8.1-10.2) (5.9-13.2)
Sacks-Davis, 2010 [53] Australia People at a music festival invited to receive PTKs; Non-monetary incentive; Reminders M/F; 67 34.7 21.4 7.4 1.5%
16-29 (31.6-37.9) (17.0-26.4) (5.4-9.3) (0.0-8.0)
Dabrera, 2010 [54] England PTKs offered to women requesting EHC at pharmacies F; 7 66.7 87.5 58.3
<=21 (34.9-90.1) (47.3-99.7) (27.7-84.8)
Rose, 2010 [55] New Zealand PTKs offered to general practice clients to pass to their social contacts M/F 3 0.0%
PTKs with pick-up programs (n=3)
Davison, 2007 [56] Scotland PTKs picked-up from GUM clinic, youth service, family planning clinic etc. M/F 799 20.2 9.0%
(18.9-21.5) (7.1-11.2)
MHF, 2005 [57] England PTKs (pick-up) were available to employees at 6 workplaces; Advertised M; 285 F 12.1 1.8%
<=30 (10.8-13.5) (0.6-4.0)
MHF, 2005 [57] England PTKs available for pick-up at 5 non-clinical sites M; 83 18.6G
<=30 (15.1-22.5)
Programs with multiple strategies (n=2)
Williamson, 2007 [58] Scotland PTKs distributed or picked-up at various locations M/F; 2295H 11.1%
13-25 (9.9-12.5)
Buhrer-Skinner, 2009 [59] Australia PTKs requested through internet/phone or picked-up at different locations; Advertised M/F; 100 7.3%
16-25 (3.0-14.4)

Definitions and abbreviations: Participation rate, participants divided by number invited × 100; Specimen return rate, number of specimens (or tests) divided by participants × 100; Testing rate, number of specimens divided by number invited × 100. CT, Chlamydia trachomatis; NG, Neisseria gonorrhoeae; M, Male; F, Female; US, United States; UK, United Kingdom; PTK, postal test kit; GUM, genitourinary medicine; MHF, Men’s Health Forum.

* Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) ** calculated among those who received PTKs (excluded undelivered kits).

A National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES); B National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal); C weighted CT prevalence; D 397 valid tests; E calculated among 1817 eligible contactable participants after excluding 6555 ineligible and 2629 un-contactable out of 11001 households sampled; F although the program was targeted at male employees, some of the specimens were returned by female employees; G specimen return rates for individual locations: Agricultural college, 41.0% (41 tests); Factory, 36.0% (9); Satellite college of university, 14.3% (4); Military Police training center 13.6% (12); Post-16 college 8.3% (17); H 20% of returned kits were distributed from clinics and 10% were picked-up form university.

Jamil et al.

Jamil et al. BMC Public Health 2013 13:189   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-189

Open Data