BACKGROUND: The study assessed the acceptability of internet-based Chlamydia screening using home-testing kits among 16- to 29-year-old participants and nonparticipants in the first year of a Chlamydia Screening Implementation program in the Netherlands. METHODS: Questionnaire surveys were administered to randomly selected participants (acceptability survey) and nonparticipants (nonresponse survey) in 3 regions of the Netherlands where screening was offered. Participants received email invitations to an online survey; nonparticipants received postal questionnaires. Both surveys enquired into opinions on the screening design, reasons for (non-) participation and future willingness to be tested. RESULTS: The response rate was 63% (3499/5569) in the acceptability survey and 15% (2053/13,724) in the nonresponse survey. Primary motivation for participating in the screening was "for my health" (63%). The main reason for nonresponse given by sexually active nonparticipants was "no perceived risk of infection" (40%). Only 2% reported nonparticipation due to no internet access. Participants found the internet (93%) and home-testing (97%) advantages of the program, regardless of test results. Two-thirds of participants would test again, 92% via the screening program. Half of nonparticipants were appreciative of the program design, while about 1 in 5 did not like internet usage, home-testing, or posting samples. CONCLUSIONS: The screening method was highly acceptable to participants. Nonparticipants in this survey were generally appreciative of the program design. Both groups made informed choices about participation and surveyed low-risk nonparticipants accurately perceived their low-risk status. Although many nonparticipants were not reached by the nonresponse survey, current insights on acceptability and nonresponse are undoubtedly valuable for evaluation of the current program.
BACKGROUND: The study assessed the acceptability of internet-based Chlamydia screening using home-testing kits among 16- to 29-year-old participants and nonparticipants in the first year of a Chlamydia Screening Implementation program in the Netherlands. METHODS: Questionnaire surveys were administered to randomly selected participants (acceptability survey) and nonparticipants (nonresponse survey) in 3 regions of the Netherlands where screening was offered. Participants received email invitations to an online survey; nonparticipants received postal questionnaires. Both surveys enquired into opinions on the screening design, reasons for (non-) participation and future willingness to be tested. RESULTS: The response rate was 63% (3499/5569) in the acceptability survey and 15% (2053/13,724) in the nonresponse survey. Primary motivation for participating in the screening was "for my health" (63%). The main reason for nonresponse given by sexually active nonparticipants was "no perceived risk of infection" (40%). Only 2% reported nonparticipation due to no internet access. Participants found the internet (93%) and home-testing (97%) advantages of the program, regardless of test results. Two-thirds of participants would test again, 92% via the screening program. Half of nonparticipants were appreciative of the program design, while about 1 in 5 did not like internet usage, home-testing, or posting samples. CONCLUSIONS: The screening method was highly acceptable to participants. Nonparticipants in this survey were generally appreciative of the program design. Both groups made informed choices about participation and surveyed low-risk nonparticipants accurately perceived their low-risk status. Although many nonparticipants were not reached by the nonresponse survey, current insights on acceptability and nonresponse are undoubtedly valuable for evaluation of the current program.
Authors: Ingrid V F van den Broek; Jan E A M van Bergen; Elfi E H G Brouwers; Johannes S A Fennema; Hannelore M Götz; Christian J P A Hoebe; Rik H Koekenbier; Mirjam Kretzschmar; Eelco A B Over; Boris V Schmid; Lydia L Pars; Sander M van Ravesteijn; Marianne A B van der Sande; G Ardine de Wit; Nicola Low; Eline L M Op de Coul Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-07-05
Authors: Travis Salway Hottes; Janine Farrell; Mark Bondyra; Devon Haag; Jean Shoveller; Mark Gilbert Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Laura W L Spauwen; Christian J P A Hoebe; Elfi E H G Brouwers; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Nynke F B Dokkum; Rik H Koekenbier; Ingrid V F van den Broek; Jan E A M van Bergen; Elfi E H G Brouwers; Johannes S A Fennema; Hannelore M Götz; Christian J P A Hoebe; Lydia L Pars; Sander M van Ravesteijn; Eline L M Op de Coul Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sarah C Woodhall; Bersabeh Sile; Alireza Talebi; Anthony Nardone; Paula Baraitser Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Boris V Schmid; Eelco A B Over; Ingrid V F van den Broek; Eline L M Op de Coul; Jan E A M van Bergen; Johan S A Fennema; Hannelore M Götz; Christian J P A Hoebe; G Ardine de Wit; Marianne A B van der Sande; Mirjam E E Kretzschmar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kevin Theunissen; Christian Hoebe; Gerjo Kok; Rik Crutzen; Chakib Kara-Zaïtri; Nanne de Vries; Jan van Bergen; Robert Hamilton; Marianne van der Sande; Nicole Dukers-Muijrers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 3.390