• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

年轻人接受衣原体筛查应该获得报酬吗?一项全国性的比较研究评估衣原体筛查的患者经济激励措施。

Should young people be paid for getting tested? A national comparative study to evaluate patient financial incentives for chlamydia screening.

机构信息

Health Protection Agency, Centre for Infections, London, UK.

出版信息

BMC Public Health. 2012 Apr 2;12:261. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-261.

DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-261
PMID:22471791
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3350390/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patient financial incentives ("incentives") have been widely used to promote chlamydia screening uptake amongst 15-24 year olds in England, but there is scarce evidence of their effectiveness. The objectives of the study were to describe incentives used to promote chlamydia screening in Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in England and to evaluate their impact on coverage and positivity rate.

METHODS

PCTs that had used incentives between 1/1/2007 and 30/6/2009 (exposed) were matched by socio-demographic profile and initial screening coverage with PCTs that had not (unexposed). For each PCT, percentage point change in chlamydia screening coverage and positivity for the period before and during the incentive was calculated. Differences in average change of coverage and positivity rate between exposed and unexposed PCTs were compared using linear regression to adjust for matching and potential confounders.

RESULTS

Incentives had a significant effect in increasing average coverage in exposed PCTs (0.43%, CI 0.04%-0.82%). The effect for voucher schemes (2.35%) was larger than for prize draws (0.16%). The difference was greater in females (0.73%) than males (0.14%). The effect on positivity rates was not significant (0.07%, CI -1.53% to 1.67%).

CONCLUSIONS

Vouchers, but not prize draws, led to a small absolute but large relative increase in chlamydia screening coverage. Incentives increased coverage more in females than males but had no impact on reported positivity rates. These findings support recommendations not to use prize draws to promote chlamydia screening and contribute to the evidence base of the operational effectiveness of using patient incentives in encouraging public health action.

摘要

背景

在英格兰,为了提高 15-24 岁人群的衣原体筛查率,广泛采用了患者经济激励措施(“激励措施”),但激励措施有效性的证据很少。本研究的目的是描述在英格兰的初级保健信托基金(PCT)中用于促进衣原体筛查的激励措施,并评估其对覆盖率和阳性率的影响。

方法

将在 2007 年 1 月 1 日至 2009 年 6 月 30 日期间(暴露组)使用激励措施的 PCT 与未使用激励措施的 PCT(非暴露组)按社会人口统计学特征和初始筛查覆盖率进行匹配。对于每个 PCT,计算激励措施实施前后衣原体筛查覆盖率和阳性率的百分点变化。使用线性回归比较暴露组和非暴露组之间覆盖率和阳性率平均变化的差异,以调整匹配和潜在混杂因素。

结果

激励措施对增加暴露组的平均覆盖率有显著影响(0.43%,CI 0.04%-0.82%)。代金券计划(2.35%)的效果大于抽奖(0.16%)。女性(0.73%)的效果大于男性(0.14%)。对阳性率的影响不显著(0.07%,CI-1.53%至 1.67%)。

结论

代金券而非抽奖导致衣原体筛查覆盖率的绝对增加很小,但相对增加很大。激励措施对女性的覆盖率增加大于男性,但对报告的阳性率没有影响。这些发现支持不使用抽奖来促进衣原体筛查的建议,并为使用患者激励措施鼓励公共卫生行动的操作有效性的证据基础做出贡献。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20b6/3350390/46455fe7d1fa/1471-2458-12-261-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20b6/3350390/46455fe7d1fa/1471-2458-12-261-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20b6/3350390/46455fe7d1fa/1471-2458-12-261-1.jpg

相似文献

1
Should young people be paid for getting tested? A national comparative study to evaluate patient financial incentives for chlamydia screening.年轻人接受衣原体筛查应该获得报酬吗?一项全国性的比较研究评估衣原体筛查的患者经济激励措施。
BMC Public Health. 2012 Apr 2;12:261. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-261.
2
Using educational outreach and a financial incentive to increase general practices' contribution to chlamydia screening in South-East London 2003-2011.利用教育推广和经济激励措施,提高东南伦敦 2003-2011 年常规医疗实践对衣原体筛查的贡献。
BMC Public Health. 2012 Sep 18;12:802. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-802.
3
The effect of financial incentives on chlamydia testing rates: evidence from a randomized experiment.经济激励对衣原体检测率的影响:一项随机实验的证据。
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Mar;105(100):140-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.018. Epub 2013 Nov 19.
4
The impact of removing financial incentives and/or audit and feedback on chlamydia testing in general practice: A cluster randomised controlled trial (ACCEPt-able).取消经济激励和/或审计与反馈对一般实践中衣原体检测的影响:一项整群随机对照试验(ACCEPt-able)。
PLoS Med. 2022 Jan 4;19(1):e1003858. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003858. eCollection 2022 Jan.
5
Do sexual health campaigns work? An outcome evaluation of a media campaign to increase chlamydia testing among young people aged 15-24 in England.性健康宣传活动有效吗?一项针对英国15至24岁年轻人增加衣原体检测的媒体宣传活动的结果评估。
BMC Public Health. 2013 May 17;13:484. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-484.
6
Will chlamydia screening reach young people in deprived areas in England? Baseline analysis of the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme delivery in 2008.英格兰贫困地区的年轻人能接受衣原体筛查吗?2008 年英格兰国家衣原体筛查规划实施的基线分析。
Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Aug;38(8):677-84. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31821597ca.
7
Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the "Test n Treat" trial.了解技术学院衣原体和淋病筛查的可接受性、障碍和促进因素:“检测与治疗”试验的定性过程评估。
BMC Public Health. 2020 Aug 8;20(1):1212. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1.
8
The implementation of chlamydia screening: a cross-sectional study in the south east of England.沙眼衣原体筛查的实施:英格兰东南部的一项横断面研究。
Sex Transm Infect. 2010 Jun;86(3):217-21. doi: 10.1136/sti.2009.037283. Epub 2010 May 10.
9
Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.激励全科医生对年轻女性进行衣原体机会性检测的激励支付:一项试点整群随机对照试验。
BMC Public Health. 2010 Feb 17;10:70. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-70.
10
Can preventive care activities in general practice be sustained when financial incentives and external audit plus feedback are removed? ACCEPt-able: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.当经济激励措施以及外部审计与反馈被取消后,全科医疗中的预防保健活动能否持续开展?可接受性:一项整群随机对照试验方案。
Implement Sci. 2016 Sep 13;11(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0489-0.

引用本文的文献

1
Applying Behavioral Economics to Improve Adolescent and Young Adult Health: A Developmentally-Sensitive Approach.应用行为经济学改善青少年和青年健康:一种发展敏感的方法。
J Adolesc Health. 2021 Jul;69(1):17-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
2
Acceptability of HIV testing for men attending televised football venues in Uganda.乌干达参加电视转播足球比赛的男性对 HIV 检测的可接受性。
BMC Public Health. 2019 Aug 19;19(1):1136. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7478-6.
3
Economic incentives for HIV testing by adolescents in Zimbabwe: a randomised controlled trial.

本文引用的文献

1
Acceptability of financial incentives to improve health outcomes in UK and US samples.接受度 金融激励 改善 健康结果 英国 美国 样本
J Med Ethics. 2011 Nov;37(11):682-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.039347. Epub 2011 Jun 13.
2
"...they should be offering it": a qualitative study to investigate young peoples' attitudes towards chlamydia screening in GP surgeries.“他们应该提供这种服务”:一项定性研究调查年轻人对全科医生诊所进行衣原体筛查的态度。
BMC Public Health. 2010 Oct 18;10:616. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-616.
3
The implementation of chlamydia screening: a cross-sectional study in the south east of England.
津巴布韦青少年艾滋病检测的经济激励:一项随机对照试验。
Lancet HIV. 2018 Feb;5(2):e79-e86. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30176-5. Epub 2017 Nov 20.
4
Interventions to Improve Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening in Clinic-Based Settings.改善基于门诊环境的性传播疾病筛查的干预措施。
Sex Transm Dis. 2016 Feb;43(2 Suppl 1):S28-41. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000294.
5
Healthcare providers' views on the acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding: a qualitative study.医疗服务提供者对母乳喂养经济激励措施可接受性的看法:一项定性研究。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Oct 9;14:355. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-355.
6
Vouchers versus Lotteries: What works best in promoting Chlamydia screening? A cluster randomised controlled trial.代金券与抽奖:在促进衣原体筛查方面哪种方法效果最佳?一项整群随机对照试验。
Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2014 Mar 1;36(1):109-124. doi: 10.1093/aepp/ppt033.
7
The effect of financial incentives on chlamydia testing rates: evidence from a randomized experiment.经济激励对衣原体检测率的影响:一项随机实验的证据。
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Mar;105(100):140-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.018. Epub 2013 Nov 19.
8
Do sexual health campaigns work? An outcome evaluation of a media campaign to increase chlamydia testing among young people aged 15-24 in England.性健康宣传活动有效吗?一项针对英国15至24岁年轻人增加衣原体检测的媒体宣传活动的结果评估。
BMC Public Health. 2013 May 17;13:484. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-484.
沙眼衣原体筛查的实施:英格兰东南部的一项横断面研究。
Sex Transm Infect. 2010 Jun;86(3):217-21. doi: 10.1136/sti.2009.037283. Epub 2010 May 10.
4
'Show me the money': financial incentives increase chlamydia screening rates among tertiary students: a pilot study.“给我钱”:经济激励措施提高了大学生衣原体筛查率:一项试点研究。
Sex Health. 2010 Mar;7(1):60-5. doi: 10.1071/SH08091.
5
The English National Chlamydia Screening Programme: variations in positivity in 2007/2008.英国国家衣原体筛查计划:2007/2008年阳性率的变化
Sex Transm Dis. 2009 Aug;36(8):522-7. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181a2aab9.
6
Using financial incentives to achieve healthy behaviour.利用经济激励措施来实现健康行为。
BMJ. 2009 Apr 9;338:b1415. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1415.
7
Offering payments, reimbursement and incentives to patients and family doctors to encourage participation in research.向患者和家庭医生提供报酬、报销和激励措施,以鼓励他们参与研究。
Fam Pract. 2009 Jun;26(3):231-8. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp011. Epub 2009 Mar 3.
8
"It has to speak to people's everyday life...": qualitative study of men and women's willingness to participate in a non-medical approach to Chlamydia trachomatis screening.“它必须与人们的日常生活相关……”:关于男性和女性参与沙眼衣原体非医学筛查方法意愿的定性研究
Sex Transm Infect. 2009 Jun;85(3):201-5. doi: 10.1136/sti.2008.031138. Epub 2008 Dec 23.
9
Should disadvantaged people be paid to take care of their health? No.弱势群体应该因照顾自身健康而获得报酬吗?不应该。
BMJ. 2008 Jul 8;337(7662):a594. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a594.
10
Should disadvantaged people be paid to take care of their health? Yes.弱势群体应该得到报酬来照顾自己的健康吗?答案是肯定的。
BMJ. 2008 Jul 8;337(7662):a589. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a589.