TY - JOUR
T1 - Community pharmacy and cash reward
T2 - A winning combination for chlamydia screening?
AU - Currie, Marian J.
AU - Deeks, Louise S.
AU - Cooper, Gabrielle M.
AU - Martin, Sarah J.
AU - Parker, Rhian M.
AU - Del Rosario, Rendry
AU - Hocking, Jane S.
AU - Bowden, Francis J.
PY - 2013/5
Y1 - 2013/5
N2 - Objectives: To date, the uptake of chlamydia screening in community pharmacies has been limited. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine if a cash reward, offered to both the provider and the consumer of chlamydia screening, increased the uptake of screening in community pharmacies. Methods: During 4 weeks in 2011, chlamydia screening and education were offered in four city and two suburban pharmacies to people aged 16-30 years. Those who provided a urine sample for testing, contact details, and completed a brief questionnaire were rewarded with $A10. Positive participants, and their nominated contacts, were offered treatment. Results: Over a period of 751.5 h, 979 testing kits were requested, and 900 (93%) urine samples returned. Using probabilistic linkage methods, we determined that 671/900 (75%) urine samples were from unique individuals. 0.9 unique samples were obtained/hour of screening, 63% of which were provided by men. 19/671 (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7% to 4.4%) people tested positive, 5.2% (95% CI 2.8% to 8.8%) of women, and 1.4% (1.4 0.5 to 3.1) of men. 11/19 (58%) people were contacted and treated - two for suspected pelvic inflammatory disease. Conclusions: Providing a cash reward to encourage chlamydia screening in community pharmacies resulted in greater participation rates than previously reported pharmacy-based studies, particularly among men. Easily implemented mechanisms to reduce inappropriate repeat screening, incorrect contact details and effects on pharmacy work flow may enhance the efficiency of this approach.
AB - Objectives: To date, the uptake of chlamydia screening in community pharmacies has been limited. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine if a cash reward, offered to both the provider and the consumer of chlamydia screening, increased the uptake of screening in community pharmacies. Methods: During 4 weeks in 2011, chlamydia screening and education were offered in four city and two suburban pharmacies to people aged 16-30 years. Those who provided a urine sample for testing, contact details, and completed a brief questionnaire were rewarded with $A10. Positive participants, and their nominated contacts, were offered treatment. Results: Over a period of 751.5 h, 979 testing kits were requested, and 900 (93%) urine samples returned. Using probabilistic linkage methods, we determined that 671/900 (75%) urine samples were from unique individuals. 0.9 unique samples were obtained/hour of screening, 63% of which were provided by men. 19/671 (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7% to 4.4%) people tested positive, 5.2% (95% CI 2.8% to 8.8%) of women, and 1.4% (1.4 0.5 to 3.1) of men. 11/19 (58%) people were contacted and treated - two for suspected pelvic inflammatory disease. Conclusions: Providing a cash reward to encourage chlamydia screening in community pharmacies resulted in greater participation rates than previously reported pharmacy-based studies, particularly among men. Easily implemented mechanisms to reduce inappropriate repeat screening, incorrect contact details and effects on pharmacy work flow may enhance the efficiency of this approach.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878209610&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050357
DO - 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050357
M3 - Article
SN - 1368-4973
VL - 89
SP - 212
EP - 216
JO - Sexually Transmitted Infections
JF - Sexually Transmitted Infections
IS - 3
ER -