Keeping participants on board: Increasing uptake by automated respondent reminders in an Internet-based Chlamydia Screening in the Netherlands

BMC Public Health

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Dokkum, Nynke Fb ^a   Koekenbier, Rik H ^a   Van Den Broek, Ingrid Vf ^b   Van Bergen, Jan Eam ^c   Brouwers, Elfi Ehg ^d   Fennema, Johannes Sa ^a   Götz, Hannelore M ^e   Hoebe, Christian Jpa ^d   Pars, Lydia L ^c   Van Ravesteijn, Sander M ^d   Op De Coul, Eline Lm ^b  

^a Health Service Amsterdam   (Netherlands)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^c National Institute for STI and AIDS Control in the Netherlands   (Netherlands)

^d South Limburg Public Health Service   (Netherlands)

^e Public Health Service of the Rotterdam Region   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chlamydia trachomatis; Internet; Screening; The Netherlands

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT; ARTICLE; CHLAMYDIASIS; E-MAIL; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; INTERNET; MALE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MOBILE PHONE; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REMINDER SYSTEM; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW; WRITING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CELLULAR PHONE; CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CORRESPONDENCE AS TOPIC; ELECTRONIC MAIL; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INTERNET; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REAGENT KITS, DIAGNOSTIC; REMINDER SYSTEMS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 84857965033     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712458     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-176     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Chlamydial infections. Schachter J, N Engl J Med 1978 298 428 35 490-95, 540-49 (in three parts) 10.1056/NEJM197802232980805 340951
2. Process evaluation of the Chlamydia Screening Implementation in the Netherlands: phase 1. Challenges and opportunities during preparation and first operational phase. Op de Coul ELM, Weenen TC, van der Sande MAB, van den Broek IVF, RIVM Report 210261006 Bilthoven 2009
3. Rationale, design, and results of the first screening round of a comprehensive, register-based. Chlamydia screening implementation programme in the Netherlands. van Bergen JEAM, Fennema JSA, van den Broek IVF, Brouwers EEHG, de Feijter EM, Hoebe CJPA, Koekenbier RH, de Coul ELM Op, van Ravesteijn SM, Götz HM, BMC Infect Dis 2010 10 293 10.1186/1471-2334-10-293 20925966
4. Evaluation design of a systematic, selective, Internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation in the Netherlands, 2008-2010: implications of first results for the analysis. van den Broek IVF, Hoebe CJPA, van Bergen JEAM, Brouwers EEHG, de Feijter EM, Fennema JSA, Götz HM, Koekenbier RH, van Ravesteijn SM, Op de Coul ELM, BMC Infect Dis 2010 10 89 10.1186/1471-2334-10-89 20374635
5. Acceptability of the internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation in the Netherlands and insights into non-response. Greenland KE, Op de Coul ELM, van Bergen JEAM, Brouwers EEHG, Fennema JSA, Götz HM, Hoebe CJPA, Koekenbier RH, Pars LL, van Ravesteijn SM, van den Broek IVF, Sex Transm Dis 2011 38 6 467 474 21217416
6. Who participates in the Dutch Chlamydia Screening? A study on demographic and behavioral correlates of participation and positivity. Op de Coul ELM, Götz HM, van Bergen JEAM, Fennema JSA, Hoebe CJPA, Koekenbier RH, van Ravesteijn SM, Pars LL, van der Sande MAB, van den Broek IVF, Sex Transm Dis 39 2 97 103
7. Lessons learned from a population-based chlamydia screening pilot. Götz HM, van Bergen JE, Veldhuijzen IK, Hoebe CJ, Broer J, Coenen AJ, de Groot F, Verhooren MJ, van Schaik DT, Richardus JH, Int J STD AIDS 2006 17 12 826 830 10.1258/095646206779307577 17212860 (Pubitemid 46057741)
8. Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevention of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, et al. BMJ 2005 330 940 10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F 15809231 (Pubitemid 40592313)
9. Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study. Novak DP, Karlsson RB, Sex Transm Infect 2006 82 142 147 10.1136/sti.2005.016832 16581742
10. Internet-based screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to reach non-clinic populations with mailed self-administered vaginal swabs. Gaydos CA, Dwyer K, Barnes M, et al. Sex Transm Dis 2006 33 451 457 10.1097/01.olq.0000200497.14326. fb 16652069 (Pubitemid 43964756)
11. Population-based outreach for chlamydia screening in men: Results from a randomized trial. Scholes D, Heidrich FE, Yarbro P, et al. Sex Transm Dis 2007 34 837 839 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31805ba860 17538514 (Pubitemid 350287495)
12. Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis: results from the first national population-based survey in France. Goulet V, de Barbeyrac B, Raherison S, Prudhomme M, Semaille C, Warszawski J, Sex Transm Infect 2010 86 4 263 270 10.1136/sti.2009.038752 20660590
13. Computer reminders for chlamydia screening in general practice: A randomised controlled trial. Walker J, Walker S, Fairley C, Gunn J, Pirotta M, Gurrin L, Carter R, Hocking J, Sex Transm Dis 2010 37 7 445 450 20375930
14. Chlamydia Screening Implementation Netherlands. Impact evaluation and cost effectiveness. RIVM report 210261008/2010 Bilthoven 2010
15. Online-mediated syphilis testing: feasibility, efficacy, and usage. Koekenbier RH, Davidovich U, van Leent EJ, Thiesbrummel HF, Fennema HS, Sex Transm Dis 2008 35 8 764 769 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31816fcb0a 18496472
16. 'Pee-in-a-pot': acceptability and uptake of on-site chlamydia screening in a student population in the Republic of Ireland. Vaughan D, O'Connell E, Cormican M, et al. BMC Infect Dis 2010 10 32 10.1186/1471-2334-10-32 20170501
17. Home-based chlamydia testing of young people attending a music festival-who will pee and post? Sacks-Davis R, Gold J, Aitken CK, Hellard ME, BMC Publ Health 2010 10 376 10.1186/1471-2458-10-376
18. Cross-sectional population-based survey of coverage and uptake of chlamydia testing and chlamydia prevalence. In Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infectio. Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts TE, et al. Health Technol Assess 2007 11 8 15 23
19. Why individuals do not return their requested Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) home collection kit: results from a qualitative study. [abstract]. Kalma LL, Koekenbier RH, Zuure FR, Davidovich U, ISSTDR congress Quebec, Canada 2011
20. Texting decreases the time to treatment for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Menon-Johansson AS, McNaught F, Mandalia S, Sullivan AK, Sex Transm Infect 2006 82 1 49 51 10.1136/sti.2004.014381 16461603 (Pubitemid 43266162)
21. Let them know: evaluation of an online partner notification service for Chlamydia that offers email and SMS messaging. Bilardi JE, Fairley CK, Hopkins CA, Hocking JS, Sze JK, Chen MY, Sex Transm Dis 2010 37 563 565 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181d707f1 20351621
22. SMS STI: a review of the uses of mobile phone text messaging in sexual health. Lim MSC, Hocking JS, Hellard ME, et al. Int J STD AIDS 2008 19 287 290 10.1258/ijsa.2007.007264 18482956 (Pubitemid 351748267)