Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 May 17:13:484.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-484.

Do sexual health campaigns work? An outcome evaluation of a media campaign to increase chlamydia testing among young people aged 15-24 in England

Affiliations

Do sexual health campaigns work? An outcome evaluation of a media campaign to increase chlamydia testing among young people aged 15-24 in England

Maya Gobin et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: A national multimedia campaign was launched in January 2010, to increase the proportion of young people tested for chlamydia. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the campaign on the coverage and positivity within the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NSCP) in England.

Method: An interrupted time series of anonymised NCSP testing reports for England for a 27 month period (1st April 2008 to 30th June 2010) was analysed. Reports were assigned to a pre-campaign, campaign and post campaign phase according to the test date. Exclusion criteria included tests for clinical reasons, contacts of known cases, and tests returned from prisons or military services.Negative binomial and logistic regression modelling was used to provide an estimate for the change in coverage and positivity, during, and after the campaign and estimates were adjusted for secular and cyclical trends.

Results: Adjusting for cyclical and secular trends, there was no change in the overall testing coverage either during (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.72-1.14) or after (RR: 0.88; 95%CI: 0.69-1.11) the campaign. The coverage varied amongst different socio-demographic groups, testing of men increased during the campaign phase while testing of people of black and other ethnic groups fell in this phase. The positivity rate was increased during the campaign (OR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.13-1.23) and further increased in the post-campaign phase (OR: 1.40; 95% CI 1.30-1.51). The proportion of chlamydia infections detected increased for all socio-demographic and self-reported sexual behaviour groups both during and after the campaign.

Conclusion: The uptake of chlamydia testing rose during the campaign; however, this apparent increase was not maintained once overall trends in testing were taken into account. Nonetheless, once secular and cyclical trends were controlled for, the campaign was associated with an increased positivity linked to increased testing of high risk individuals groups in the target population who were previously less likely to come forward for testing. However, our study indicated that there may have been a disparity in the impact of the campaign on different population groups. The content and delivery of ongoing and future information campaigns aimed at increasing chlamydia screening should be carefully developed so that they are relevant to all sections of the target population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of records included in the final coverage and positivity analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of Chlamydia tests and proportion positive from 1st April 2008 to 30th June 2010.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. National Chlamydia Screening Steering Group. New Frontiers: Annual Report of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England 2005/06. London; 2006.
    1. Adams EJ, Charlett A, Edmunds WJ, Hughes G. Chlamydia trachomatis in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and analysis of prevalence studies. Sex Transm Infect. 2004;80:354–362. doi: 10.1136/sti.2003.005454. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Simms I, Stephenson JM. Pelvic inflammatory disease epidemiology: what do we know and what do we need to know? Sex Transm Infect. 2000;76:80–87. doi: 10.1136/sti.76.2.80. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. LaMontagne DS, Fenton KA, Randall S, Anderson S, Carter P. Establishing the national Chlamydia screening programme in England: results from the first full year of screening. Sex Transm Infect. 2004;80(5):335–341. doi: 10.1136/sti.2004.012856. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. National Chlamydia Screening Programm. NHS Vital Signs 2010/11: Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Strategic Health Authority (SHA) specific tables, 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011. London. 2011. http://www.chlamydiascreening.nhs.uk/ps/assets/pdfs/data/VSI_PCT/VSI_by_....