Comparison of adherence to chlamydia screening guidelines among Title X providers and non-Title X providers in the California Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment Program
- PMID: 22694761
- PMCID: PMC3411333
- DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2011.3376
Comparison of adherence to chlamydia screening guidelines among Title X providers and non-Title X providers in the California Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment Program
Abstract
Background: Annual chlamydia screening is recommended for adolescent and young adult females and targeted screening is recommended for women ≥26 years based on risk. Although screening levels have increased over time, adherence to these guidelines varies, with high levels of adherence among Title X family planning providers. However, previous studies of provider variation in screening rates have not adjusted for differences in clinic and client population characteristics.
Methods: Administrative claims from the California Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment (Family PACT) program were used to (1) examine clinic and client sociodemographic characteristics by provider group-Title X-funded public sector, non-Title X public sector, and private sector providers, and (2) estimate age-specific screening and differences in rates by provider group during 2009.
Results: Among 833 providers, Title X providers were more likely than non-Title X public sector providers and private sector providers to serve a higher client volume, a higher proportion of clients aged ≤25 years, and a higher proportion of African American clients. Non-Title X public providers were more likely to be located in rural areas, compared with Title X grantees and private sector providers. Title X providers had the largest absolute difference in screening rates for young females vs. older females (10.9%). Unadjusted screening rates for young clients were lower among non-Title X public sector providers (54%) compared with private sector and Title X providers (64% each). After controlling for provider group, urban location, client volume, and percent African American, private sector providers had higher screening rates than Title X and non-Title X public providers.
Conclusions: Screening rates for females were higher among private providers compared with Title X and non-Title X public providers. However, only Title X providers were more likely to adhere to screening guidelines through high screening rates for young females and low screening rates for older females.
Comment in
-
The intersection of progress and missed opportunities: provider group variations in chlamydia screening practices within California's Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment Program.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012 Aug;21(8):811-2. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2012.3798. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012. PMID: 22860769 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The intersection of progress and missed opportunities: provider group variations in chlamydia screening practices within California's Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment Program.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012 Aug;21(8):811-2. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2012.3798. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012. PMID: 22860769 No abstract available.
-
Onsite provision of specialized contraceptive services: does Title X funding enhance access?J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014 May;23(5):428-33. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2013.4511. Epub 2014 Jan 9. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014. PMID: 24405313 Free PMC article.
-
Enhancing service delivery through title x funding: findings from California.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012 Dec;44(4):262-9. doi: 10.1363/4426212. Epub 2012 Nov 20. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012. PMID: 23231334
-
Comparative performance of private and public healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001244. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001244. Epub 2012 Jun 19. PLoS Med. 2012. PMID: 22723748 Free PMC article. Review.
-
In urban and rural India, a standardized patient study showed low levels of provider training and huge quality gaps.Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Dec;31(12):2774-84. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1356. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012. PMID: 23213162 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in California's Family Planning Program.J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2018 Jul;22(3):171-177. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000376. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2018. PMID: 29474237 Free PMC article.
-
Missed Opportunities for Chlamydia Screening in Title X Family Planning Clinics.Sex Transm Dis. 2017 Sep;44(9):519-523. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000641. Sex Transm Dis. 2017. PMID: 28809768 Free PMC article.
-
School-Based Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening: Review and Programmatic Guidance.Sex Transm Dis. 2016 Feb;43(2 Suppl 1):S18-27. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000283. Sex Transm Dis. 2016. PMID: 26779684 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance, 2009. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
-
- Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2009 supplement—Chlamydia prevalence monitoring project annual report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. www.cdc.gov/std/Chlamydia2009/default.htm. [Apr 26;2011 ]. www.cdc.gov/std/Chlamydia2009/default.htm
-
- Westrom L. Joesoef R. Reynolds G. Hagdu A. Thompson SE. Pelvic inflammatory disease and fertility. A cohort study of 1,844 women with laparoscopically verified disease and 657 control women with normal laparoscopic results. Sex Transm Dis. 1992;19:185–192. - PubMed
-
- Westrom LV. Sexually transmitted diseases and infertility. Sex Transm Dis. 1994;21(Suppl 2):S32–37. - PubMed
-
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for chlamydial infection: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:128–133. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
