Interactive workshops increase chlamydia testing in primary care--a controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians suggest that staff education is needed to increase chlamydia testing appropriately. OBJECTIVES: To determine if interactive workshops and modified laboratory request forms could increase testing and case detection. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cluster randomized controlled study, using modified Zelen's design, examining the effect of workshops and modified request forms on primary care clinicians' chlamydia specimen submission and case positivity rate. STUDY POPULATION: 82 general practices in six geographical clusters within five primary care trusts (PCTs) in Gloucestershire and County Durham and Darlington. INTERVENTION: Practices within geographical clusters were randomly assigned to workshops on chlamydia or a control consisting of comparable workshops on the management of urinary symptoms, held in PCT-protected learning time. Half the practices were randomized to receive modified laboratory request forms. Staff were unaware that they were part of a study. RESULTS: Interactive workshops increased chlamydia testing in 16- to 24-year-old women by 33% in intervention practices compared to controls with effect persisting at 10 months (P = 0.003). No associated rise in the number of chlamydia infections was detected (P = 0.91), suggesting that increased testing may have occurred in a lower risk population. Modified forms did not change test submission (P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Interactive workshops for general practices can be used to successfully increase chlamydia-testing rates. Chlamydia detection rates will need to be monitored as this type of educational programme may not increase absolute numbers of chlamydia infections detected, if patients at lower risk of infection are inappropriately tested. Other interventions may need to be combined with the workshops, to reach sufficiently high chlamydia screening rates to significantly reduce prevalence of chlamydial infection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".