Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pillay J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8056106 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.
Pillay Jennifer J Wingert Aireen A MacGregor Tara T Gates Michelle M Vandermeer Ben B Hartling Lisa L
Systematic reviews 20210419 1
<h4>Background</h4>We conducted systematic reviews on the benefits and harms of screening compared with no screening or alternative screening approaches for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) in non-pregnant sexually active individuals, and on the relative importance patients' place on the relevant outcomes. Findings will inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched five databases (to January 24, 2020), trial regis ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundChlamydia 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.MethodsWe 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.DiscussionThe 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 registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.
| S-EPMC6307186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review screening and treatment effectiveness, and patient preferences, to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy.DesignWe searched multiple databases (inception to September 2017) and grey literature sources for studies on screening effectiveness and patient preferences. For treatment with antibiotics, we searched three databases for systematic reviews and obtained search results of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register to update a Cochrane review. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and evaluation of the quality for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was completed independently by two reviewers with consensus. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate as were analyses based on planned subgroup variables.OutcomesFor screening and treatment effectiveness: maternal and perinatal mortality, maternal and neonatal sepsis, pyelonephritis, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birth weight and serious adverse events. Valuation of outcomes for patient preferences.ResultsFour studies compared outcomes before and after the introduction of a screening programme or between different screening programmes. All evidence on screening effectiveness was considered very low quality. Women have conflicting opinions about antibiotic use during pregnancy. Fifteen trials compared antibiotic treatment with no treatment or placebo in women with confirmed bacteriuria. Low-quality evidence found that treatment lowered rates of pyelonephritis (12 trials, relative risk [RR] 0.24; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.42; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 17.6%; number needed to treat [NNT] 6, 95% CI 5 to 7) and low birth weight (seven trials, RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; ARR 4.4%; NNT 23, 95% CI 15 to 85).ConclusionsAntibiotic treatment for women having significant bacteriuria likely reduces the incidence of pyelonephritis and low birth weight, but we are uncertain about the magnitude of the effect and about the extent to which we can apply these results to asymptomatic populations and screening programmes.Prospero registration numberCRD42016045263.
| S-EPMC6429717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. In all cases of suspected sexually transmitted infections (STIs), it has been routine practice to screen for syphilis with a blood sample. The incidence of syphilis seems to be lower than that of commonly screened STIs. Objective. The objective of our study was to determine whether it is cost-effective to screen for syphilis with serological testing in cases of suspected gonorrhea and chlamydia infections. Hypothesis. Our hypothesis is that it is not cost-effective to screen for syphilis in cases of presumed gonorrhea and chlamydia infections. Methods. Our study is a New York Medical College institutional review board-approved retrospective study. During the period January 2004 to August 12, 2006, the laboratory work of all patients tested for gonorrhea and chlamydia in our emergency department was reviewed. The charts were reviewed for the following tests: gonorrhea DNA probe, chlamydia DNA probe, and syphilis IgG (immunoglobulin G)/RPR (rapid plasma reagin). The results of these tests were obtained and analyzed. Results. The total number of patients screened for gonorrhea and chlamydia during this period was 196. Seventy-eight patients tested positive for gonorrhea and chlamydia. All these 78 patients, tested negative for syphilis. The overall prevalence of positivity for STIs was 39.8% (78/196). The prevalence of chlamydia alone was 85.9% (67/78) and gonorrhea alone was 7.69% (6/78). The prevalence of combined both chlamydia and gonorrhea was 6.4% (5/78). Statistics. We used online SILICO 2 × 4 Fisher exact test. By comparing positive and negative results of serology RPR, GC, and chlamydia trap, the resultant 2-tailed P value is <.0001, which is statistically significant. Conclusions. Per our study, the yield of syphilis testing was negligible. It may not be cost-effective to screen for syphilis in cases of STIs such as gonorrhea and chlamydia.
| S-EPMC5528914 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify associations between various cultural and demographic factors and patients' primary health care preferences.Search strategySearches were performed in MEDLINE (1966-December 2000), PsycINFO (1977-May 2001) and Sociological Abstracts (1963-December 2000). Identified papers were checked for more papers.Inclusion criteriaStudies with a focus on primary health care or health care in general, asking patients about preferences with regard to health care, reporting quantitative results and examining the relations between specific patient characteristics and patient preferences.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted from studies using a scoring form to register what methods were used, which patient characteristics were analysed and which patient characteristics significantly influenced patients' preferences with regard to different aspects of health care (P < 0.05).Main resultsA total of 145 studies were included with 2276 comparisons between subgroups of patients. Of all the comparisons, 607 (27%) showed a significant association between patient characteristics and preferences with regard to primary health care. Age and economic status significantly related to patient preferences in 38 and 33% of the comparisons, respectively. Education, health status, family situation, sex, and utilization of health care related significantly to patient preferences in less than 25% of the comparisons.ConclusionsThis review of the literature showed patient characteristics to be an important determinant of preferences regarding many aspects of primary health care defined as general practice care or health care, in general. All of the patient characteristics examined here showed at least some significant associations with preferences for primary health care.
| S-EPMC5060177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInterprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings.MethodsAn overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (-), mixed results (?) or no change (0).Results34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types.ConclusionsThis overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.
| S-EPMC8231476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, registered nurses (RNs) are increasingly working in primary care interdisciplinary teams. Although existing literature provides some information about the contributions of RNs towards outcomes of care, further evidence on RN workforce contributions, specifically towards patient-level outcomes, is needed. This study synthesized evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search of databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, Embase) was performed using applicable subject headings and keywords. Additional literature was identified through grey literature searches (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, MedNar, Google Scholar, websites, reference lists of included articles). Quantitative studies measuring the effectiveness of a RN-led intervention (i.e., any care/activity performed by a primary care RN) that reported related outcomes were included. Articles were screened independently by two researchers and assessed for bias using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity in study designs, RN-led interventions, and outcome measures across included studies.ResultsForty-six patient outcomes were identified across 23 studies. Outcomes were categorized in accordance with the PaRIS Conceptual Framework (patient-reported experience measures, patient-reported outcome measures, health behaviours) and an additional category added by the research team (biomarkers). Primary care RN-led interventions resulted in improvements within each outcome category, specifically with respect to weight loss, pelvic floor muscle strength and endurance, blood pressure and glycemic control, exercise self-efficacy, social activity, improved diet and physical activity levels, and reduced tobacco use. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with RN-led care.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care, specifically with respect to satisfaction, enablement, quality of life, self-efficacy, and improvements in health behaviours. Ongoing evaluation that accounts for primary care RNs' unique scope of practice and emphasizes the patient experience is necessary to optimize the delivery of patient-centered primary care.Protocol registration idPROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2018. ID=CRD42 018090767 .
| S-EPMC9166606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being proposed for use in medicine, including breast cancer screening (BCS). Little is known, however, about referring primary care providers' (PCPs') preferences for this technology.MethodsWe identified the most important attributes of AI BCS for ordering PCPs using qualitative interviews: sensitivity, specificity, radiologist involvement, understandability of AI decision-making, supporting evidence, and diversity of training data. We invited US-based PCPs to participate in an internet-based experiment designed to force participants to trade off among the attributes of hypothetical AI BCS products. Responses were analyzed with random parameters logit and latent class models to assess how different attributes affect the choice to recommend AI-enhanced screening.ResultsNinety-one PCPs participated. Sensitivity was most important, and most PCPs viewed radiologist participation in mammography interpretation as important. Other important attributes were specificity, understandability of AI decision-making, and diversity of data. We identified 3 classes of respondents: "Sensitivity First" (41%) found sensitivity to be more than twice as important as other attributes; "Against AI Autonomy" (24%) wanted radiologists to confirm every image; "Uncertain Trade-Offs" (35%) viewed most attributes as having similar importance. A majority (76%) accepted the use of AI in a "triage" role that would allow it to filter out likely negatives without radiologist confirmation.Conclusions and relevanceSensitivity was the most important attribute overall, but other key attributes should be addressed to produce clinically acceptable products. We also found that most PCPs accept the use of AI to make determinations about likely negative mammograms without radiologist confirmation.
| S-EPMC8200265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea are the most reported sexually transmitted infections in the United States. Testing rates remain suboptimal and may be subject to implicit bias. We evaluated the effectiveness of an opt-out chlamydia and gonorrhea testing program for adolescents and young adults in improving testing rates and promoting equity.MethodsAn opt-out testing program that standardized testing to once annually for 14 to 24-year-old patients was implemented across 28 federally qualified health centers spanning 4 specialties. A quasi-experimental design using interrupted time series analyses evaluated testing and infection rates between baseline, intervention, and pandemic-associated test shortage periods. Reduction in testing inequities based on sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, and language preference were also examined.ResultsA total of 57 452 encounters during the baseline, 17 320 during the intervention, and 26 993 during the test supply shortage periods were included. Testing increased from 66.8% to 81.0% (14.2% absolute increase) between baseline and intervention periods. Pediatric clinics demonstrated the largest improvement compared to other settings (absolute increase 30.9%). We found significant reductions in testing inequities for language preference (P < .001), and un-insured and public insured individuals (P < .001). More cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea were detected in the intervention period (chlamydia-29.7; gonorrhea-7.4 per 1000 patients) than in the baseline period (chlamydia-20.7; gonorrhea-4.4 per 1000 patients; P < .001).ConclusionsAn opt-out approach increased testing, reduced inequities between some groups and detected more infections than a risk-based approach. Opt-out testing should be considered as an approach to increase detection of chlamydia and gonorrhea and promote equity.
| S-EPMC9619876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic reviews comparing the effectiveness of strategies to prevent, detect, and treat chronic kidney disease are needed to inform patient care. We engaged stakeholders in the chronic kidney disease community to prioritize topics for future comparative effectiveness research systematic reviews. We developed a preliminary list of suggested topics and stakeholders refined and ranked topics based on their importance. Among 46 topics identified, stakeholders nominated 18 as 'high' priority. Most pertained to strategies to slow disease progression, including: (a) treat proteinuria, (b) improve access to care, (c) treat hypertension, (d) use health information technology, and (e) implement dietary strategies. Most (15 of 18) topics had been previously studied with two or more randomized controlled trials, indicating feasibility of rigorous systematic reviews. Chronic kidney disease topics rated by stakeholders as 'high priority' are varied in scope and may lead to quality systematic reviews impacting practice and policy.
| S-EPMC3472164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhea (GC) in young men seeking care in the emergency department (ED) for non-sexually transmitted infection (STI) related symptoms.This was a prospective, cross-sectional study in an urban ED. The main outcome was the rate of positive CT and GC on urine nucleic acid amplification testing in males aged 16-21 presenting with non-STI related complaints.Two hundred and eighty-four patients were enrolled, 271 were included in the final data analysis [age range 16-21, median: 18 (quartiles 16-18, 19-21)]. Overall, 17 (6.3%, 95%CI: 4%-10%) tested positive for CT and 0% (95%CI: 0%-2%) were found to have GC. The proportion of sexually active subjects was 71% (95%CI: 65%-76%) and 2% (95%CI: 0.6%-4%) reported sex with men. Previous STI testing was reported in 46% (95%CI: 43%-54%) and 13% (95%CI: 8%-20%) of those patients previously tested had a history of STI. Of the patients who tested positive for CT in the ED, 88% (95%CI: 64%-98%) were successfully followed up.The prevalence of CT infection found by screening was 6.3%. Screening and follow-up from the ED was successful. The findings justify routine STI screening in male adolescents presenting to the ED with non-STI related complaints.
| S-EPMC5547427 | biostudies-other