What is the Effectiveness of Community-based Health Promotion Campaigns on Chlamydia Screening Uptake in Young People and What Barriers and Facilitators Have Been Identified? A Mixed-methods Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Sex Transm Infect

Specialty Infectious Diseases

Date 2021 Aug 27

PMID 34446545

Citations 1

Authors

Emma Pearce

Kate Jolly

Isobel Marion Harris

Ada Adriano

David Moore

Malcolm Price

Jonathan Ross

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The UK National Chlamydia Screening Programme uses an opportunistic approach. Many programmes use campaigns to raise awareness of chlamydia screening in young people. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of campaigns on uptake of chlamydia screening in young people.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of articles assessing the outcomes of community-based health-promotion campaigns to increase chlamydia screening in young people, their experiences of the campaigns and other facilitators and barriers to the conduct of the campaigns. We searched four databases for quantitative and qualitative studies with no language restrictions.

Main Results: From 10 329 records identified, 19 studies (20 articles) were included in the review: 14 quantitative, 2 qualitative and 3 mixed methods. All studies with quantitative outcomes were before-after study designs or interrupted time series. The prediction interval for relative change (RC) in test counts ranged from 0.95 to 1.56, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 1.22 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.30, 13 studies, I=97%). For test positivity rate, 95% prediction interval was 0.59 to 1.48, with a summary pooled estimate of RC 0.93 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.07, 8 studies, I=91.8%). Large variation in characteristics between studies precluded exploring outcomes by type of campaign components. Seven major qualitative themes to improve screening were identified: targeting of campaigns; quality of materials and message; language; anonymity; use of technology; relevance; and variety of testing options.

Conclusions: Health promotion campaigns aiming to increase chlamydia testing in those aged 15-24 years may show some effectiveness in increasing overall numbers of tests, however numbers of positive tests do not follow the same trend. Qualitative findings indicate that campaigns require clear, relevant messaging that displays the full range of testing options and assures anonymity in order to be effective.

Citing Articles

What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review.

Pearce E, Jolly K, Harris I, Adriano A, Moore D, Price M Sex Transm Infect. 2021; 98(1):62-69.

PMID: 34446545 PMC: 8785066. DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2021-055142.

References

Low N, Redmond S, Uuskula A, van Bergen J, Ward H, Andersen B . Screening for genital chlamydia infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 9:CD010866. PMC: 6457643. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010866.pub2. View

van Liere G, Dukers-Muijrers N, van Bergen J, Gotz H, Stals F, Hoebe C . The added value of chlamydia screening between 2008-2010 in reaching young people in addition to chlamydia testing in regular care; an observational study. BMC Infect Dis. 2014; 14:612. PMC: 4239384. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-014-0612-2. View

Chen M, Karvelas M, Sundararajan V, Hocking J, Fairley C . Evidence for the effectiveness of a chlamydia awareness campaign: increased population rates of chlamydia testing and detection. Int J STD AIDS. 2007; 18(4):239-43. DOI: 10.1258/095646207780658854. View

Wakefield M, Loken B, Hornik R . Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet. 2010; 376(9748):1261-71. PMC: 4248563. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4. View

Dielissen P, Teunissen D, Lagro-Janssen A . Chlamydia prevalence in the general population: is there a sex difference? a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2013; 13:534. PMC: 4225722. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-534. View

Friedman A, Brookmeyer K, Kachur R, Ford J, Hogben M, Habel M . An assessment of the GYT: Get Yourself Tested campaign: an integrated approach to sexually transmitted disease prevention communication. Sex Transm Dis. 2014; 41(3):151-7. PMC: 6448774. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000100. View

Lee J, Landrine H, Martin R, Matthews D, Averett P, Niederdeppe J . Reasons for Caution When Emphasizing Health Disparities for Sexual and Gender Minority Adults in Public Health Campaigns. Am J Public Health. 2017; 107(8):1223-1225. PMC: 5508158. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303883. View

Gabarron E, Wynn R . Use of social media for sexual health promotion: a scoping review. Glob Health Action. 2016; 9:32193. PMC: 5030258. DOI: 10.3402/gha.v9.32193. View

Friedman A, Bozniak A, Ford J, Hill A, Olson K, Ledsky R . Reaching Youth With Sexually Transmitted Disease Testing: Building on Successes, Challenges, and Lessons Learned From Local Get Yourself Tested Campaigns. Soc Mar Q. 2019; 20(2):116-138. PMC: 6866650. DOI: 10.1177/1524500414530386. View

10.

Roston A, Suleta K, Stempinski K, Keith L, Patel A . Get Yourself Tested 2011-2012: findings and prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae at an urban public health system. Int J STD AIDS. 2014; 26(5):322-8. DOI: 10.1177/0956462414536541. View

11.

Dowshen N, Lee S, Matty Lehman B, Castillo M, Mollen C . IknowUshould2: Feasibility of a Youth-Driven Social Media Campaign to Promote STI and HIV Testing Among Adolescents in Philadelphia. AIDS Behav. 2015; 19 Suppl 2:106-11. PMC: 4495004. DOI: 10.1007/s10461-014-0991-9. View

12.

Low N, Bender N, Nartey L, Shang A, Stephenson J . Effectiveness of chlamydia screening: systematic review. Int J Epidemiol. 2008; 38(2):435-48. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn222. View

13.

Park A, Eckert T, Zaso M, Scott-Sheldon L, Vanable P, Carey K . Associations Between Health Literacy and Health Behaviors Among Urban High School Students. J Sch Health. 2017; 87(12):885-893. PMC: 5669371. DOI: 10.1111/josh.12567. View

14.

Guy R, Goller J, Leslie D, Thorpe R, Grierson J, Batrouney C . No increase in HIV or sexually transmissible infection testing following a social marketing campaign among men who have sex with men. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009; 63(5):391-6. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2008.077099. View

15.

Anderson E, Eastman-Mueller H, Henderson S, Even S . Man Up Monday: An integrated public health approach to increase sexually transmitted infection awareness and testing among male students at a midwest university. J Am Coll Health. 2015; 64(2):147-51. DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2015.1062768. View

16.

Lydie N, de Barbeyrac B, Bluzat L, Le Roy C, Kersaudy-Rahib D . Chlamyweb Study I: rationale, design and acceptability of an internet-based chlamydia testing intervention. Sex Transm Infect. 2017; 93(3):179-187. DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2015-052511. View

17.

Price M, Ades A, Soldan K, Welton N, Macleod J, Simms I . The natural history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women: a multi-parameter evidence synthesis. Health Technol Assess. 2016; 20(22):1-250. PMC: 4819202. DOI: 10.3310/hta20220. View

18.

Gold J, Goller J, Hellard M, Lim M, Hocking J, Fairley C . Impact evaluation of a youth sexually transmissible infection awareness campaign using routinely collected data sources. Sex Health. 2011; 8(2):234-41. DOI: 10.1071/SH10082. View

19.

Pearce E, Jolly K, Harris I, Adriano A, Moore D, Price M . What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review. Sex Transm Infect. 2021; 98(1):62-69. PMC: 8785066. DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2021-055142. View

20.

Wilkins A, Mak D . . . . Sending out an SMS: an impact and outcome evaluation of the Western Australian Department of Health's 2005 chlamydia campaign. Health Promot J Austr. 2007; 18(2):113-20. DOI: 10.1071/he07113. View