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.