Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The effect of 2 population-based outreach screening strategies that used in-home sampling was compared with usual care practices for Chlamydia trachomatis infection. All 30,439 persons 21-23 years old in Aarhus County, Denmark, were divided randomly into 3 groups: group 1 (n=4500) had a home sampling kit mailed directly to their centrally registered home address; group 2 (n=4500) had a reply card mailed to their home address with which a home sampling kit could be ordered; and group 3 (n=21,439) had access to usual care. For women in groups 1 and 2, the relative risks of being tested were 4.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-4.4) and 3.5 (95% CI, 3.2-3.9), respectively, compared with usual care. The corresponding figures for men were 19.1 (95% CI, 16.0-22.8) and 11.8 (95% CI, 9.8-14.2), respectively. Both screening strategies were highly effective, but men benefited the most from having the home sampling kit provided directly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andersen et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: