Table 2 Reduction in model population prevalence (males/females, all ages) under different screening strategies: 1, 5 and 10 years after introduction of screening.
| Strategy (<25 years old) | Reduction in population prevalence | Total screens in 10 years | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year | 5 years | 10 years | ||
| Strategy 1 (women, annual) | 23% | 57% | 70% | 34 678 |
| Strategy 2 (women, annual + partner change) | 28% | 69% | 84% | 63 669 |
| Strategy 3 (women + men annual) | 40% | 79% | 89% | 69 444 |
| Strategy 2b | 28% | 70% | 83% | 63 476 |
| Strategy 2c | 28% | 69% | 82% | 63 501 |
| Strategy 2d | 21% | 57% | 71% | 60 525 |
| Sensitivity analyses (strategy 3 as baseline) | ||||
| 10% acceptance women, 1.4% in men | 9% | 23% | 29% | 12 786 |
| 10% acceptance | 12% | 38% | 50% | 21 976 |
| 30% acceptance | 29% | 68% | 82% | 51 058 |
| 70% acceptance | 46% | 83% | 91% | 81 925 |
| 50% PN when screening starts | 50% | 86% | 93% | 69 347 |
| Non‐equitable coverage | 29% | 64% | 77% | 47 219 |
| Screening accepted only once | 38% | 55% | 58% | 24 419 |
Strategies 1–3 have effective partner notification = 20%, acceptance = 50% and no variation in coverage (all attend, all offered screen, 50% accept).
PN, partner notification.