ArticleSexually transmitted infections2026
Evaluation of a free mail-in opt-out STI testing programme on 3-month rescreening rates in reproductive health centres.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend rescreening for chlamydia, gonorrhoea and trichomoniasis 3 months after treatment to detect reinfection. This intervention aimed to improve rescreening rates by removing multiple logistical and financial barriers to rescreening within our influence for the greatest possible effect.
methodsFor 1 year (2022, n=837), free (to the patient) rescreen tests were automatically mailed to all patients in 21 health centres 3 months after they were treated for chlamydia, gonorrhoea and/or trichomoniasis, unless they opted out or were rescreened sooner. Patients returned the completed mail-in self-collection kit in a prepaid envelope within 2-4 weeks. Rescreening rates were compared with a control period (2019, n=1743).
resultsA total of 2580 rescreen opportunities (intervention=837, control=1743) were tracked for rescreening. The median age was 23, 66% were female, 80% were white and 79% tested positive for chlamydia. The intervention increased rescreening rates from 22% to 26%, which was not statistically significant after adjustment (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48, p=0.08).
conclusionsA 4% increase in rescreening rates did not justify programme continuation. While rescreening has been an important public health strategy to reduce sexually transmitted infections (STIs), this programme reveals that high rates of rescreening may not be possible. Recommending rescreening and making it free, convenient and automatic is not enough. Without new ideas and approaches to tackling this public health problem, STI reinfection and resulting reproductive health complications will persist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.