The implementation of chlamydia screening: a cross-sectional study in the south east of England

Background England's National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) provides opportunistic testing for under 25 year-olds in healthcare and non-healthcare settings. The authors aimed to explore relationships between coverage and positivity in relation to demographic characteristics or setting, in order to inform efficient and sustainable implementation of the NCSP. Methods The authors analysed mapped NCSP testing data from the South East region of England between April 2006 and March 2007 inclusive to population characteristics. Coverage was estimated by sex, demographic characteristics and service characteristics, and variation in positivity by setting and population group. Results Coverage in females was lower in the least deprived areas compared with the most deprived areas (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.50). Testing rates were lower in 20 1324-year-olds compared with 15 1319-year-olds (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.72 for females and OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.71 for males), but positivity was higher in older males. Females were tested most often in healthcare services, which also identified the most positives. The greatest proportions of male tests were in university (27%) and military (19%) settings which only identified a total of 11% and 13% of total male positives respectively. More chlamydia-positive males were identified through healthcare services despite fewer numbers of tests. Conclusions Testing of males focused on institutional settings where there is a low yield of positives, and limited capacity for expansion. By contrast, the testing of females, especially in urban environments, was mainly through established healthcare services. Future strategies should prioritise increasing male testing in healthcare settings

Public health professionals' perceptions toward provision of health protection in England: a survey of expectations of Primary Care Trusts and Health Protection Units in the delivery of health protection

BACKGROUND: Effective health protection requires systematised responses with clear accountabilities. In England, Primary Care Trusts and the Health Protection Agency both have statutory responsibilities for health protection. A Memorandum of Understanding identifies responsibilities of both parties, but there is a potential lack of clarity about responsibility for specific health protection functions. We aimed to investigate professionals' perceptions of responsibility for different health protection functions, to inform future guidance for, and organisation of, health protection in England. METHODS: We sent a postal questionnaire to all health protection professionals in England from the following groups: (a) Directors of Public Health in Primary Care Trusts; (b) Directors of Health Protection Units within the Health Protection Agency; (c) Directors of Public Health in Strategic Health Authorities and; (d) Regional Directors of the Health Protection Agency RESULTS: The response rate exceeded 70%. Variations in perceptions of who should be, and who is, delivering health protection functions were observed within, and between, the professional groups (a)-(d). Concordance in views of which organisation should, and which does deliver was high (≥90%) for 6 of 18 health protection functions, but much lower (≤80%) for 6 other functions, including managing the implications of a case of meningitis out of hours, of landfill environmental contamination, vaccination in response to mumps outbreaks, nursing home infection control, monitoring sexually transmitted infections and immunisation training for primary care staff. The proportion of respondents reporting that they felt confident most or all of the time in the safe delivery of a health protection function was strongly correlated with the concordance (r = 0.65, P = 0.0038). CONCLUSION: Whilst we studied professionals' perceptions, rather than actual responses to incidents, our study suggests that there are important areas of health protection where consistent understanding of responsibility for delivery is lacking. There are opportunities to clarify the responsibility for health protection in England, perhaps learning from the approaches used for those health protection functions where we found consistent perceptions of accountability

Mortality during the 2013 heatwave in England--How did it compare to previous heatwaves? A retrospective observational study.

Heatwaves are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity as a result of climate change. The health impacts of these events can be significant, particularly for vulnerable populations when mortality can occur. England experienced a prolonged heatwave in summer 2013. Daily age-group and region-specific all-cause excess mortality during summer 2013 and previous heatwave periods back to 2003 was determined using the same linear regression model and heatwave definition to estimate impact and place observations from 2013 in context. Predicted excess mortality due to heat during this period was also independently estimated. Despite a sustained heatwave in England in 2013, the impact on mortality was considerably less than expected; a small cumulative excess of 195 deaths (95% confidence interval -87 to 477) in 65+ year olds and 106 deaths (95% CI -22 to 234) in <65 year olds was seen, nearly a fifth of excess deaths predicted based on observed temperatures. This impact was also less than seen in 2006 (2323 deaths) and 2003 (2234 deaths), despite a similarly prolonged period of high temperatures. The reasons for this are unclear and further work needs to be done to understand this and further clarify the predicted impact of increases in temperature