Dataset Information

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders.

Methods

We have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings.

Discussion

The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC-supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity-to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care.

Systematic review registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.

SUBMITTER: Pillay J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6307186 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review.

Pillay Jennifer J Moore Ainsley A Rahman Prinon P Lewin Gabriel G Reynolds Donna D Riva John J Thériault Guyléne G Thombs Brett B Wilson Brenda B Robinson Joan J Ramdyal Amanda A Cadieux Geneviéve G Featherstone Robin R Burchell Anne N AN Dillon Jo-Anne JA Singh Ameeta A Wong Tom T Doull Marion M Traversy Greg G Courage Susan S MacGregor Tara T Johnson Cydney C Vandermeer Ben B Hartling Lisa L

Systematic reviews 20181226 1

<h4>Background</h4>Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infec ...[more]

PMID: 30587234

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough most neoplasms result from complex interactions between the individual's genome and the environment, a percentage of cases is particularly due to inherited alterations that confer a greater predisposition to the development of tumors. Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes have a high psychosocial and economic burden, in addition to being characterized by an increased risk for one or more types of cancer, onset of malignancy at a young age, high risk of secondary malignancies, and occurrence in successive generations of the family. Personal and family history, as well as pedigree, may be useful resources to estimate the risk for developing cancer, especially in Primary Health Care settings.ObjectiveTo identify and evaluate the evidence regarding the impact of using family history as a genomic technology for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes screening at Primary Health Care.MethodsThis systematic review protocol was elaborated in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will include all observational as well as experimental study designs published up to end of July 2022, and studies covering the impact of family history on screening for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes in primary health care. Qualitative studies, as well as guidelines, reviews, and studies undertaken in hospitals, outpatient clinic, or medical environments will be excluded. Five databases will be searched, including MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and LILACS. Additional sources will also be retrieved, including Clinical trials.gov-NIH, The British Library, and Google Scholar. No restriction to language or date will be employed in the search strategy. Three investigators will select studies independently, perform data extraction, and conduct the critical appraisal of the risk of bias and overall quality of the selected studies according to their designs. Regarding data synthesis, the study characteristics will be summarized and presented in tables and results will be presented according to the study design. A qualitative synthesis of data will also be provided in this systematic review.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this systematic review will be the first to identify and critically assess evidence regarding the impact of using family history as a genomic technology for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes screening in Primary Health Care settings worldwide. This study is expected to provide consistent evidence that will aid the primary care decision-makers regarding hereditary cancer screening, thus helping individuals and families at risk for cancer.Prospero registration numberCRD42020166211.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify current uptake of chlamydia testing (UCT) as a sexual and reproductive health service (SRHS) integrated in primary care settings of the WHO European region, with the aim to shape policy and quality of care. DESIGN:Systematic review for studies published from January 2001 to May 2018 in any European language. DATA SOURCES:OVID Medline, EMBASE, Maternal and Infant Care and Global Health. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Published studies, which involved women or men, adolescents or adults, reporting a UCT indicator in a primary care within a WHO European region country. Study designs considered were: randomised control trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational (eg, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) and mixed-methods studies as well as case reports. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers screened the sources and validated the selection process. The BRIGGS Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool 2011 and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists were considered for quality and risk of bias assessment. RESULTS:24 studies were finally included, of which 15 were cross-sectional, 4 cohort, 2 RCTs, 2 case-control studies and 1 mixed-methods study. A majority of the evidence cites the UK model, followed by the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Belgium only. Acceptability if offered test in primary healthcare (PHC) ranged from 55% to 81.4% in women and from 9.5% to 70.6% when both genders were reported together. Men may have a lower UCT compared with women. When both genders were reported together, the lowest acceptability was 9.5% in the Netherlands. Denmark presented the highest percentage of eligible people who tested in a PHC setting (87.3%). CONCLUSIONS:Different health systems may influence UCT in PHC. The regional use of a common testing rate indicator is suggested to homogenise reporting. There is very little evidence on integration of SRHS such as chlamydia testing in PHC and there are gaps between European countries.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Frailty is an increasingly common condition in which physiological decline as a result of accumulated deficits renders older people more vulnerable to adverse outcomes. An increasing range of frailty screening programmes have been introduced in primary care to identify frail older people in order to deliver appropriate interventions. However, limited information on the knowledge and attitude of healthcare professionals (HCPs) with respect to frailty screening is known. The aim of this systematic review is to provide evidence on the knowledge and attitude of HCP in terms of frailty screening, and potentially identify barriers and facilitators to frailty screening to improve implementation of frailty screening in primary care. METHODS/DESIGN:A systematic review of qualitative research will be conducted. Databases searched will be MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and Web of Science from January 2001 to August 2019. Methods will be reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Population, interest, context and study design methodology was used to develop inclusion and exclusion criteria with HCPs as population, frailty screening as interest and knowledge or attitude of HCPs to frailty screening as context. Studies with a qualitative methodology or a mixed-method design where the qualitative component is analysed separately will also be included. Quality appraisal will be carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool for qualitative studies. Data will be extracted from each selected study with thematic framework analysis used to synthesise findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This systematic review does not require ethical approval as primary data will not be collected. The findings will be disseminated at conferences and in a relevant academic journal. This review will assist HCPs and relevant stakeholders to tackle the challenges of frailty screening in primary care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019159007.

Project description:BackgroundThe increases in STI rates since the late 1990s in Canada have occurred despite widespread primary care and targeted public health programs and in the setting of universal health care. More innovative interventions are required that would eliminate barriers to STI testing such as internet-based or mail-in home and community service testing for patients that are hard to reach, who refuse to go for clinician-based testing, or who decline an examination. Jurisdictions such as New Zealand and some American states currently use self-collected sampling, but without the required evidence to determine whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens in terms of chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the review is to compare self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal samples to our reference standard - clinician-collected cervical, urethral, pharyngeal and rectal sampling techniques to identify a positive specimen using nucleic acid amplification test assays.MethodsThe hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and the fixed effect models were used to assess the accuracy of comparable specimens that were collected by patients compared to clinicians. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as our main outcome measures.FindingsWe included 21 studies based on over 6100 paired samples. Fourteen included studies examined chlamydia only, 6 compared both gonorrhea and chlamydia separately in the same study, and one examined gonorrhea. The six chlamydia studies comparing self-collection by vaginal swab to a clinician-collected cervical swab had the highest sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 87-95) and specificity (98%, 95% CI 97-99), compared to other specimen-types (urine/urethra or urine/cervix). Six studies compared urine self-samples to urethra clinician-collected samples in males and produced a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 83-93) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Taking into account that urine samples may be less sensitive than cervical samples, eight chlamydia studies that compared urine self-collected verses clinician-collected cervical samples had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 81-91) and high specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). For gonorrhea testing, self-collected urine samples compared to clinician-collected urethra samples in males produced a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00).ConclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of vaginal self-collected swabs compared to swabs collected by clinicians supports the use of vaginal swab as the recommended specimen of choice in home-based screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Urine samples for gonorrhea collected by men had comparably high sensitivity and specificity, so could be recommended as they can be left at room temperature for several days, allowing for the possibility of mail-in home-based testing. In populations that may not go for testing at all, do not have the option of clinical testing, or who refuse a clinical examination, self-collected screening would be a good alternative. We recommend that guidelines on how to self-collect gonorrhea and chlamydia urine, vaginal, rectal and pharyngeal specimens be published.

Project description:BackgroundMental health is an integral part of health and well-being and yet health systems have not adequately responded to the burden of mental disorders. Integrating mental health services into primary health care (PHC) is the most viable way of closing the treatment gap and ensuring that people get the mental health care they need. PHC was formally adapted by the World Health Organization (WHO), and they have since invested enormous amounts of resources across the globe to ensure that integration of mental health services into PHC works.MethodsThis review will use the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) framework approach to identify experiences of mental health integration into PHC; the findings will be reported using the "Best fit" framework synthesis. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) will be searched including other sources like the WHO website and OpenGrey database. Assessment of bias and quality will be done at study level using two separate tools to check for the quality of evidence presented. Data synthesis will take on two synergistic approaches (qualitative and quantitative studies). Synthesizing evidence from countries across the globe will provide useful insights into the experiences of integrating mental health services into PHC and how the barriers and challenges have been handled. The findings will be useful to a wide array of stakeholders involved in the implementation of the mental health integration into PHC.DiscussionThe SPIDER framework has been chosen for this review because of its suitable application to qualitative and mixed methods research and will be used as a guide when selecting articles for inclusion. Data extracted will be synthesized using the "Best fit" framework because it has been used before and proved its suitability in producing new conceptual models for explaining decision-making and possible behaviors. Synthesizing evidence from countries across the globe will provide useful insights into the experiences of integrating mental health services into PHC and how the barriers and challenges have been handled.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016052000.

Dataset Information

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets