Skip to main content

Table 1 Model-predicted prevalence among 15–18 years olds in intervention schools and in broader community over a 12-year period: baseline and intervention scenarios at the enda

From: Mathematical modeling study of school-based chlamydia screening: potential impact on chlamydia prevalence in intervention schools and surrounding communities

 

In intervention schools

In broader community

 

All students

Sexually active students

All people

Sexually active people

Philadelphia

 Prevalence in baseline scenario (%)

3.10 (2.78–3.44)

5.03 (4.39–5.42)

3.10 (2.78–3.44)

5.03 (4.39–5.42)

 Reduction in prevalence with screeningb

  At 30% coverage, with stable participation

0.85 (0.74–0.95)

1.38 (1.22–1.49)

0.28 (0.24–0.32)

0.45 (0.39–0.50)

  At 30% coverage, with declining participation

0.15 (0.12–0.17)

0.24 (0.20–0.27)

0.05 (0.04–0.07)

0.08 (0.07–0.10)

  At 30% coverage, with increasing participation

1.28 (1.12–1.42)

2.09 (1.84–2.23)

0.42 (0.36–0.48)

0.68 (0.59–0.75)

  At 20% coverage, with stable participation

0.84 (0.73–0.94)

1.37 (1.21–1.48)

0.19 (0.16–0.21)

0.30 (0.26–0.34)

  At 40% coverage, with stable participation

0.86 (0.75–0.96)

1.40 (1.23–1.50)

0.37 (0.32–0.43)

0.60 (0.52–0.67)

  At 60% coverage, with stable participation

0.87 (0.76–0.98)

1.42 (1.25–1.53)

0.55 (0.48–0.63)

0.89 (0.78–0.99)

Chicago

 Prevalence in baseline scenario (%)

4.12 (2.07–5.48)

7.01 (3.09–9.28)

4.12 (2.07–5.48)

7.01 (3.09–9.28)

 Reduction in prevalence with screeningb

  At 30% coverage, with stable participation

1.26 (0.62–1.76)

2.15 (0.93–2.85)

0.53 (0.22–0.82)

0.91 (0.33–1.31)

  At 30% coverage, with declining participation

0.26 (0.12–0.42)

0.47 (0.19–0.68)

0.14 (0.05–0.26)

0.23 (0.08–0.42)

  At 30% coverage, with increasing participation

1.85 (0.92–2.54)

3.17 (1.36–4.17)

0.77 (0.32–1.16)

1.31 (0.48–1.87)

  At 20% coverage, with stable participation

1.21 (0.61–1.65)

2.05 (0.91–2.73)

0.36 (0.15–0.55)

0.61 (0.22–0.89)

  At 40% coverage, with stable participation

1.31 (0.63–1.86)

2.24 (0.94–3.02)

0.70 (0.29–1.08)

1.20 (0.44–1.73)

  At 60% coverage, with stable participation

1.44 (0.65–2.07)

2.42 (0.97–3.39)

1.04 (0.43–1.58)

1.76 (0.64–2.54)

Rural Iowac

 Prevalence in baseline scenario (%)

0.58 (0.41–0.7)

1.28 (0.92–1.54)

0.58 (0.92–0.72)

1.28 (0.92–1.54)

 Reduction in prevalence with screeningb

  At 30% coverage, with stable participation

0.18 (0.13–0.22)

0.40 (0.29–0.47)

0.07 (0.05–0.09)

0.16 (0.12–0.19)

  At 30% coverage, with declining participation

0.04 (0.03–0.05)

0.09 (0.07–0.11)

0.02 (0.02–0.03)

0.05 (0.04–0.06)

  At 30% coverage, with increasing participation

0.26 (0.18–0.32)

0.58 (0.42–0.69)

0.10 (0.08–0.12)

0.23 (0.17–0.27)

  At 20% coverage, with stable participation

0.17 (0.12–0.21)

0.38 (0.28–0.46)

0.05 (0.04–0.06)

0.11 (0.08–0.13)

  At 40% coverage, with stable participation

0.19 (0.13–0.23)

0.41 (0.30–0.48)

0.10 (0.07–0.11)

0.21 (0.15–0.25)

  At 60% coverage, with stable participation

0.20 (0.14–0.24)

0.44 (0.32–0.51)

0.14 (0.10–0.17)

0.31 (0.23–0.36)

  1. aAll results show median values and 95% credible intervals
  2. bReductions are expressed in absolute terms, i.e. as percentage point decreases in prevalence
  3. cRural Iowa was simulated using the state-level diagnosis reports and excluding the 10 most populous counties
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us