OBJECTIVES: Re-screening after an initial positive test is a highly effective strategy to identify new Chlamydia trachomatis positive cases. Here, we evaluate adherence to international re-screening guidelines and the re-screening positive rates among sexual healthcare providers. METHODS: Passive retrospective cohort data were obtained from our STI clinic (South Limburg, Netherlands) and from the public laboratory that performs the majority of C trachomatis tests (September 2006-September 2010) conducted in the eastern South Limburg area. We assessed trends in re-screening after 3-12 months among young (16-25-year-old) and older women and men and evaluated differences between providers using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: The positive rates in C trachomatis screening varied from 2-9% depending on the type of provider. At the STI clinic, subsequent re-screening was performed in 33% (382/1144) of patients, and 19% of re-screening cases were positive (74/382). Similar rates were observed for gynaecologists (re-screening 30%, 54/178; re-screening positive rate 15%, 8/51); re-screening rates were lower for general practitioners (23%, 144/625, p<0.01), but the positive rate in re-screening was similar (17%, 25/144). At the STI clinic, the re-screening rate was higher for older females (p<0.01) and older males (p<0.01) than for young females. The re-screening rate for young male patients increased over time (p=0.04). General practitioners re-screened young women more often than young (p<0.01) and older (p<0.01) men. CONCLUSIONS: Positive rates were high for all care providers when re-screening patients. However, re-screening practices are suboptimal and differ between providers, arguing for improved adherence to current C trachomatis control guidelines.
OBJECTIVES: Re-screening after an initial positive test is a highly effective strategy to identify new Chlamydia trachomatis positive cases. Here, we evaluate adherence to international re-screening guidelines and the re-screening positive rates among sexual healthcare providers. METHODS: Passive retrospective cohort data were obtained from our STI clinic (South Limburg, Netherlands) and from the public laboratory that performs the majority of C trachomatis tests (September 2006-September 2010) conducted in the eastern South Limburg area. We assessed trends in re-screening after 3-12 months among young (16-25-year-old) and older women and men and evaluated differences between providers using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: The positive rates in C trachomatis screening varied from 2-9% depending on the type of provider. At the STI clinic, subsequent re-screening was performed in 33% (382/1144) of patients, and 19% of re-screening cases were positive (74/382). Similar rates were observed for gynaecologists (re-screening 30%, 54/178; re-screening positive rate 15%, 8/51); re-screening rates were lower for general practitioners (23%, 144/625, p<0.01), but the positive rate in re-screening was similar (17%, 25/144). At the STI clinic, the re-screening rate was higher for older females (p<0.01) and older males (p<0.01) than for young females. The re-screening rate for young male patients increased over time (p=0.04). General practitioners re-screened young women more often than young (p<0.01) and older (p<0.01) men. CONCLUSIONS: Positive rates were high for all care providers when re-screening patients. However, re-screening practices are suboptimal and differ between providers, arguing for improved adherence to current C trachomatis control guidelines.
Authors: Kevin A T M Theunissen; Pim Schipper; Christian J P A Hoebe; Rik Crutzen; Gerjo Kok; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Geneviève A F S van Liere; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Jan E A M van Bergen; Hannelore M Götz; Frans Stals; Christian J P A Hoebe Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Maartje Visser; Fleur van Aar; Femke D H Koedijk; Carolina J G Kampman; Janneke C M Heijne Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Juliën N A P Wijers; Geneviève A F S van Liere; Christian J P A Hoebe; Jochen W L Cals; Petra F G Wolffs; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Juliën N A P Wijers; Christian J P A Hoebe; Geneviève A F S van Liere; Petra F G Wolffs; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Kevin A T M Theunissen; Petra T Wolffs; Gerjo Kok; Christian J P A Hoebe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Arjen G C L Speksnijder; Servaas A Morré; Petra F G Wolffs; Marianne A B van der Sande; Antoinette A T P Brink; Ingrid V F van den Broek; Marita I L S Werner; Christian J P A Hoebe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Petra F G Wolffs; Lisanne Eppings; Hannelore M Götz; Sylvia M Bruisten; Maarten F Schim van der Loeff; Kevin Janssen; Mayk Lucchesi; Titia Heijman; Birgit H van Benthem; Jan E van Bergen; Servaas A Morre; Jos Herbergs; Gerjo Kok; Mieke Steenbakkers; Arjan A Hogewoning; Henry J de Vries; Christian J P A Hoebe Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 3.090