High yield of reinfections by home-based automatic rescreening of Chlamydia positives in a large-scale register-based screening programme and determinants of repeat infections
Introduction In a systematic internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation Programme in The Netherlands, all chlamydia-positive participants automatically received a testkit after 6 months to facilitate early detection of repeat infections. The authors describe participation in repeat testing an...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Sexually transmitted infections 2013-02, Vol.89 (1), p.63-69 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 69 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 63 |
| container_title | Sexually transmitted infections |
| container_volume | 89 |
| creator | Götz, Hannelore M van den Broek, Ingrid V F Hoebe, Christian J P A Brouwers, Elfi E H G Pars, Lydia L Fennema, Johan S A Koekenbier, Rik H van Ravesteijn, Sander Op de Coul, Eline L M van Bergen, Jan |
| description | Introduction In a systematic internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation Programme in The Netherlands, all chlamydia-positive participants automatically received a testkit after 6 months to facilitate early detection of repeat infections. The authors describe participation in repeat testing and prevalence and determinants of repeat infection during three consecutive annual screening rounds. Methods Data collection included information on testkits sent, samples received and results of laboratory tests at time of baseline test and retest; (sexual) behavioural variables and socio-demographic variables were assessed. Chlamydia positives were requested to answer additional questions about treatment and partner notification 10 days after checking their results. Results Retest rate was 66.3% (2777/4191). Retest chlamydia positivity was 8.8% (242/2756) compared with a chlamydia positivity at first screening test of 4.1%. Chlamydia positivity was significantly higher in younger age groups (14.6% in 16–19 years, 8.5% and 5.5% in 20–24 and 25–29 years; p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050455 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1551631734</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4026595201</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b446t-319e23c957ca845f00d56b741a922cb7419b00feedd02d1094313d1d6457c34e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkctu1DAYhSMEohd4A4QssWFj6lucyRJGdIqoyoLL1nLiPxkPsTPYDuo8Fa9YR5m2EhtY2ZK_c3SsryheUfKOUi4vItymoH3EjFCKSUlEWT4pTqmoGOZM8qf5zuUKi7riJ8VZjDtCiKzK-nlxwljFVjUlp8WfK9tv0cHCYNDYoQDWd9AmO_qImgPajg5woyMYpKc0Op1sm6HYBgBvfT9n1ttBu4OxGu3HaJP9DRFZjzQadOgBx1YPkDO9jQnCseyxYB_GPmjnAGlvkIHMOOu1T3HZswed0OOoF8WzTg8RXh7P8-L75cdv6yt8_WXzaf3-GjdCyIQ5rYHxti6rVq9E2RFiStlUguqasXa-1A0hHYAxhBlKasEpN9RIkRNcAD8v3i69ed-vCWJSzsYWhkF7GKeoaFlSyWnFxb9RVvFqRSmRGX3zF7obp-DzRxTNiKyF5DMlFqoNY4wBOrUP1ulwUJSo2b26d69m92pxn2Ovj-VT48A8hO5lZwAvwGzi9uFdh59K5omluvmxVp8_fN2sbjZMXWb-YuEbt_u_CXebRs2J</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781694636</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>High yield of reinfections by home-based automatic rescreening of Chlamydia positives in a large-scale register-based screening programme and determinants of repeat infections</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><creator>Götz, Hannelore M ; van den Broek, Ingrid V F ; Hoebe, Christian J P A ; Brouwers, Elfi E H G ; Pars, Lydia L ; Fennema, Johan S A ; Koekenbier, Rik H ; van Ravesteijn, Sander ; Op de Coul, Eline L M ; van Bergen, Jan</creator><creatorcontrib>Götz, Hannelore M ; van den Broek, Ingrid V F ; Hoebe, Christian J P A ; Brouwers, Elfi E H G ; Pars, Lydia L ; Fennema, Johan S A ; Koekenbier, Rik H ; van Ravesteijn, Sander ; Op de Coul, Eline L M ; van Bergen, Jan</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction In a systematic internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation Programme in The Netherlands, all chlamydia-positive participants automatically received a testkit after 6 months to facilitate early detection of repeat infections. The authors describe participation in repeat testing and prevalence and determinants of repeat infection during three consecutive annual screening rounds. Methods Data collection included information on testkits sent, samples received and results of laboratory tests at time of baseline test and retest; (sexual) behavioural variables and socio-demographic variables were assessed. Chlamydia positives were requested to answer additional questions about treatment and partner notification 10 days after checking their results. Results Retest rate was 66.3% (2777/4191). Retest chlamydia positivity was 8.8% (242/2756) compared with a chlamydia positivity at first screening test of 4.1%. Chlamydia positivity was significantly higher in younger age groups (14.6% in 16–19 years, 8.5% and 5.5% in 20–24 and 25–29 years; p<0.01); in participants with lower education (15.2% low, 11.1% medium and 5.1% high; p<0.001) and in Surinamese/Antillean (13.1%), Turkish/Moroccan (12.9%) and Sub-Saharan African participants (18.6%; p<0.01). At baseline, 88.7% infected participants had reportedly been treated and treatment of current partner was 80.1%. Discussion Automated retesting by sending a testkit after 6 months to all chlamydia positives achieved high retest uptake and yielded a positivity rate twice as at baseline and can therefore be recommended as an additional strategy for chlamydia control. The high rate of repeat infections among known risk groups suggests room for improvement in patient case management and in effective risk reduction counselling.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1368-4973</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1472-3263</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-3263</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050455</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22728910</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age groups ; automated home-based testing ; Bacteriological Techniques - methods ; Case management ; Chlamydia ; chlamydia infection ; Chlamydia trachomatis ; clinical STI care ; Data collection ; Education ; epidemiology ; Ethnicity ; Female ; general practice ; HIV ; Humans ; Infections ; Lymphogranuloma Venereum - diagnosis ; Lymphogranuloma Venereum - epidemiology ; Male ; Mass Screening - methods ; Netherlands - epidemiology ; participation ; Point-of-Care Systems ; positivity ; Prevalence ; Questionnaires ; Recurrence ; Regression analysis ; repeat infection ; screening ; Self Administration - methods ; Self report ; Sociodemographics ; surveillance ; syndromic management ; Variables ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Sexually transmitted infections, 2013-02, Vol.89 (1), p.63-69</ispartof><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Copyright: 2013 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b446t-319e23c957ca845f00d56b741a922cb7419b00feedd02d1094313d1d6457c34e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b446t-319e23c957ca845f00d56b741a922cb7419b00feedd02d1094313d1d6457c34e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://sti.bmj.com/content/89/1/63.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://sti.bmj.com/content/89/1/63.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,776,780,3183,23550,27901,27902,77342,77373</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22728910$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Götz, Hannelore M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Broek, Ingrid V F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoebe, Christian J P A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brouwers, Elfi E H G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pars, Lydia L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fennema, Johan S A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koekenbier, Rik H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Ravesteijn, Sander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Op de Coul, Eline L M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Bergen, Jan</creatorcontrib><title>High yield of reinfections by home-based automatic rescreening of Chlamydia positives in a large-scale register-based screening programme and determinants of repeat infections</title><title>Sexually transmitted infections</title><addtitle>Sex Transm Infect</addtitle><description>Introduction In a systematic internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation Programme in The Netherlands, all chlamydia-positive participants automatically received a testkit after 6 months to facilitate early detection of repeat infections. The authors describe participation in repeat testing and prevalence and determinants of repeat infection during three consecutive annual screening rounds. Methods Data collection included information on testkits sent, samples received and results of laboratory tests at time of baseline test and retest; (sexual) behavioural variables and socio-demographic variables were assessed. Chlamydia positives were requested to answer additional questions about treatment and partner notification 10 days after checking their results. Results Retest rate was 66.3% (2777/4191). Retest chlamydia positivity was 8.8% (242/2756) compared with a chlamydia positivity at first screening test of 4.1%. Chlamydia positivity was significantly higher in younger age groups (14.6% in 16–19 years, 8.5% and 5.5% in 20–24 and 25–29 years; p<0.01); in participants with lower education (15.2% low, 11.1% medium and 5.1% high; p<0.001) and in Surinamese/Antillean (13.1%), Turkish/Moroccan (12.9%) and Sub-Saharan African participants (18.6%; p<0.01). At baseline, 88.7% infected participants had reportedly been treated and treatment of current partner was 80.1%. Discussion Automated retesting by sending a testkit after 6 months to all chlamydia positives achieved high retest uptake and yielded a positivity rate twice as at baseline and can therefore be recommended as an additional strategy for chlamydia control. The high rate of repeat infections among known risk groups suggests room for improvement in patient case management and in effective risk reduction counselling.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age groups</subject><subject>automated home-based testing</subject><subject>Bacteriological Techniques - methods</subject><subject>Case management</subject><subject>Chlamydia</subject><subject>chlamydia infection</subject><subject>Chlamydia trachomatis</subject><subject>clinical STI care</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>epidemiology</subject><subject>Ethnicity</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>general practice</subject><subject>HIV</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Lymphogranuloma Venereum - diagnosis</subject><subject>Lymphogranuloma Venereum - epidemiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Netherlands - epidemiology</subject><subject>participation</subject><subject>Point-of-Care Systems</subject><subject>positivity</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>repeat infection</subject><subject>screening</subject><subject>Self Administration - methods</subject><subject>Self report</subject><subject>Sociodemographics</subject><subject>surveillance</subject><subject>syndromic management</subject><subject>Variables</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1368-4973</issn><issn>1472-3263</issn><issn>1472-3263</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkctu1DAYhSMEohd4A4QssWFj6lucyRJGdIqoyoLL1nLiPxkPsTPYDuo8Fa9YR5m2EhtY2ZK_c3SsryheUfKOUi4vItymoH3EjFCKSUlEWT4pTqmoGOZM8qf5zuUKi7riJ8VZjDtCiKzK-nlxwljFVjUlp8WfK9tv0cHCYNDYoQDWd9AmO_qImgPajg5woyMYpKc0Op1sm6HYBgBvfT9n1ttBu4OxGu3HaJP9DRFZjzQadOgBx1YPkDO9jQnCseyxYB_GPmjnAGlvkIHMOOu1T3HZswed0OOoF8WzTg8RXh7P8-L75cdv6yt8_WXzaf3-GjdCyIQ5rYHxti6rVq9E2RFiStlUguqasXa-1A0hHYAxhBlKasEpN9RIkRNcAD8v3i69ed-vCWJSzsYWhkF7GKeoaFlSyWnFxb9RVvFqRSmRGX3zF7obp-DzRxTNiKyF5DMlFqoNY4wBOrUP1ulwUJSo2b26d69m92pxn2Ovj-VT48A8hO5lZwAvwGzi9uFdh59K5omluvmxVp8_fN2sbjZMXWb-YuEbt_u_CXebRs2J</recordid><startdate>201302</startdate><enddate>201302</enddate><creator>Götz, Hannelore M</creator><creator>van den Broek, Ingrid V F</creator><creator>Hoebe, Christian J P A</creator><creator>Brouwers, Elfi E H G</creator><creator>Pars, Lydia L</creator><creator>Fennema, Johan S A</creator><creator>Koekenbier, Rik H</creator><creator>van Ravesteijn, Sander</creator><creator>Op de Coul, Eline L M</creator><creator>van Bergen, Jan</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201302</creationdate><title>High yield of reinfections by home-based automatic rescreening of Chlamydia positives in a large-scale register-based screening programme and determinants of repeat infections</title><author>Götz, Hannelore M ; van den Broek, Ingrid V F ; Hoebe, Christian J P A ; Brouwers, Elfi E H G ; Pars, Lydia L ; Fennema, Johan S A ; Koekenbier, Rik H ; van Ravesteijn, Sander ; Op de Coul, Eline L M ; van Bergen, Jan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b446t-319e23c957ca845f00d56b741a922cb7419b00feedd02d1094313d1d6457c34e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age groups</topic><topic>automated home-based testing</topic><topic>Bacteriological Techniques - methods</topic><topic>Case management</topic><topic>Chlamydia</topic><topic>chlamydia infection</topic><topic>Chlamydia trachomatis</topic><topic>clinical STI care</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>epidemiology</topic><topic>Ethnicity</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>general practice</topic><topic>HIV</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Lymphogranuloma Venereum - diagnosis</topic><topic>Lymphogranuloma Venereum - epidemiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Netherlands - epidemiology</topic><topic>participation</topic><topic>Point-of-Care Systems</topic><topic>positivity</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>repeat infection</topic><topic>screening</topic><topic>Self Administration - methods</topic><topic>Self report</topic><topic>Sociodemographics</topic><topic>surveillance</topic><topic>syndromic management</topic><topic>Variables</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Götz, Hannelore M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Broek, Ingrid V F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoebe, Christian J P A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brouwers, Elfi E H G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pars, Lydia L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fennema, Johan S A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koekenbier, Rik H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Ravesteijn, Sander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Op de Coul, Eline L M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Bergen, Jan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Sexually transmitted infections</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Götz, Hannelore M</au><au>van den Broek, Ingrid V F</au><au>Hoebe, Christian J P A</au><au>Brouwers, Elfi E H G</au><au>Pars, Lydia L</au><au>Fennema, Johan S A</au><au>Koekenbier, Rik H</au><au>van Ravesteijn, Sander</au><au>Op de Coul, Eline L M</au><au>van Bergen, Jan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>High yield of reinfections by home-based automatic rescreening of Chlamydia positives in a large-scale register-based screening programme and determinants of repeat infections</atitle><jtitle>Sexually transmitted infections</jtitle><addtitle>Sex Transm Infect</addtitle><date>2013-02</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>89</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>63</spage><epage>69</epage><pages>63-69</pages><issn>1368-4973</issn><issn>1472-3263</issn><eissn>1472-3263</eissn><abstract>Introduction In a systematic internet-based Chlamydia Screening Implementation Programme in The Netherlands, all chlamydia-positive participants automatically received a testkit after 6 months to facilitate early detection of repeat infections. The authors describe participation in repeat testing and prevalence and determinants of repeat infection during three consecutive annual screening rounds. Methods Data collection included information on testkits sent, samples received and results of laboratory tests at time of baseline test and retest; (sexual) behavioural variables and socio-demographic variables were assessed. Chlamydia positives were requested to answer additional questions about treatment and partner notification 10 days after checking their results. Results Retest rate was 66.3% (2777/4191). Retest chlamydia positivity was 8.8% (242/2756) compared with a chlamydia positivity at first screening test of 4.1%. Chlamydia positivity was significantly higher in younger age groups (14.6% in 16–19 years, 8.5% and 5.5% in 20–24 and 25–29 years; p<0.01); in participants with lower education (15.2% low, 11.1% medium and 5.1% high; p<0.001) and in Surinamese/Antillean (13.1%), Turkish/Moroccan (12.9%) and Sub-Saharan African participants (18.6%; p<0.01). At baseline, 88.7% infected participants had reportedly been treated and treatment of current partner was 80.1%. Discussion Automated retesting by sending a testkit after 6 months to all chlamydia positives achieved high retest uptake and yielded a positivity rate twice as at baseline and can therefore be recommended as an additional strategy for chlamydia control. The high rate of repeat infections among known risk groups suggests room for improvement in patient case management and in effective risk reduction counselling.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>22728910</pmid><doi>10.1136/sextrans-2011-050455</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1368-4973 |
| ispartof | Sexually transmitted infections, 2013-02, Vol.89 (1), p.63-69 |
| issn | 1368-4973 1472-3263 1472-3263 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1551631734 |
| source | MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2 |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Age groups automated home-based testing Bacteriological Techniques - methods Case management Chlamydia chlamydia infection Chlamydia trachomatis clinical STI care Data collection Education epidemiology Ethnicity Female general practice HIV Humans Infections Lymphogranuloma Venereum - diagnosis Lymphogranuloma Venereum - epidemiology Male Mass Screening - methods Netherlands - epidemiology participation Point-of-Care Systems positivity Prevalence Questionnaires Recurrence Regression analysis repeat infection screening Self Administration - methods Self report Sociodemographics surveillance syndromic management Variables Young Adult |
| title | High yield of reinfections by home-based automatic rescreening of Chlamydia positives in a large-scale register-based screening programme and determinants of repeat infections |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T09%3A12%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=High%20yield%20of%20reinfections%20by%20home-based%20automatic%20rescreening%20of%20Chlamydia%20positives%20in%20a%20large-scale%20register-based%20screening%20programme%20and%20determinants%20of%20repeat%20infections&rft.jtitle=Sexually%20transmitted%20infections&rft.au=G%C3%B6tz,%20Hannelore%20M&rft.date=2013-02&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=63&rft.epage=69&rft.pages=63-69&rft.issn=1368-4973&rft.eissn=1472-3263&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/sextrans-2011-050455&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4026595201%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781694636&rft_id=info:pmid/22728910&rfr_iscdi=true |