Measuring the Uptake and Impact of Chlamydia Screening Programs—Easier Said Than Done

The passage of the landmark United States (U.S.) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 has placed a new emphasis on prevention services, including increased access, coverage, and improved quality of care. In this legislation, chlamydia screening qualifies along with other preventi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sexually transmitted diseases 2012-02, Vol.39 (2), p.89-91
1. Verfasser: Chow, Joan M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The passage of the landmark United States (U.S.) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 has placed a new emphasis on prevention services, including increased access, coverage, and improved quality of care. In this legislation, chlamydia screening qualifies along with other preventive services (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.H. 111-148, March 2010, §2,713) as an essential health service benefit by virtue of having an "A" rating ("strongly recommended") from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. However, along with this important commitment of public health resources comes accountability by demonstrating outcomes and results. It should not come as a surprise that in the current era of unprecedented government budget reductions, there is a compelling need for evidence-based prioritization and impact assessment. Funding agencies increasingly need health program data to show the impact of investment in preventive services, and chlamydia screening is no exception. However, measuring the population-level impact of chlamydia screening expansion in the U.S. since the 1980s has been problematic; conflicting data on screening uptake, chlamydia burden, and adverse reproductive outcomes, including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and tubal factor infertility, have all been challenging to interpret, despite compelling epidemiologic evidence supporting intervention.
ISSN:0148-5717
1537-4521
DOI:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318245f95c