Repeat chlamydia screening among adolescents: cohort study in a school-based programme in New Orleans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe uptake of chlamydia screening, determine rates of repeated yearly screening and investigate determinants of repeated participation in an organised school-based screening programme. METHODS: The authors analysed data from 1995 to 2005 from female and male students in up to 13 schools in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. The authors calculated proportions of students tested among all enrolled students and among those with parental consent and the percentage of positive chlamydia tests in each school year. The authors used random effects logistic regression to examine the effect of past screening history on subsequent participation. RESULTS: 35 041 students were registered for at least one school year. Overall coverage was >30% in all school years. Among all students registered for 4 years, 10.6% (95% CI 9.3% to 12.0%) of women and 12.7% (95% CI 11.2% to 14.2%) of men had a test every year. Among students with parental consent for 4 years, 49.3% (95% CI 44.6% to 54.1%) of women and 59.3% (95% CI 54.5% to 64.0%) of men had a test every year. Among students registered for 2 or more years, those with a previous positive chlamydia test were less likely to have a subsequent test (female adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88 and male adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02). Chlamydia positivity increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of uptake can be achieved in school-based chlamydia screening programmes, but repeated yearly screening is difficult to sustain over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".