156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23527005)
1. Effects of population based screening for Chlamydia infections in the Netherlands limited by declining participation rates.
Schmid BV; Over EA; van den Broek IV; Op de Coul EL; van Bergen JE; Fennema JS; Götz HM; Hoebe CJ; de Wit GA; van der Sande MA; Kretzschmar ME
PLoS One; 2013; 8(3):e58674. PubMed ID: 23527005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation.
van den Broek IV; van Bergen JE; Brouwers EE; Fennema JS; Götz HM; Hoebe CJ; Koekenbier RH; Kretzschmar M; Over EA; Schmid BV; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; van der Sande MA; de Wit GA; Low N; Op de Coul EL
BMJ; 2012 Jul; 345():e4316. PubMed ID: 22767614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation design of a systematic, selective, internet-based, Chlamydia screening implementation in the Netherlands, 2008-2010: implications of first results for the analysis.
van den Broek IV; Hoebe CJ; van Bergen JE; Brouwers EE; de Feijter EM; Fennema JS; Götz HM; Koekenbier RH; van Ravesteijn SM; de Coul EL
BMC Infect Dis; 2010 Apr; 10():89. PubMed ID: 20374635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Chlamydia screening is not cost-effective at low participation rates: evidence from a repeated register-based implementation study in The Netherlands.
de Wit GA; Over EA; Schmid BV; van Bergen JE; van den Broek IV; van der Sande MA; Welte R; Op de Coul EL; Kretzschmar ME
Sex Transm Infect; 2015 Sep; 91(6):423-9. PubMed ID: 25759475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Who participates in the Dutch Chlamydia screening? A study on demographic and behavioral correlates of participation and positivity.
Op de Coul EL; Götz HM; van Bergen JE; Fennema JS; Hoebe CJ; Koekenbier RH; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; van der Sande MA; van den Broek IV
Sex Transm Dis; 2012 Feb; 39(2):97-103. PubMed ID: 22249297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Keeping participants on board: increasing uptake by automated respondent reminders in an Internet-based chlamydia screening in the Netherlands.
Dokkum NF; Koekenbier RH; van den Broek IV; van Bergen JE; Brouwers EE; Fennema JS; Götz HM; Hoebe CJ; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; Op de Coul EL
BMC Public Health; 2012 Mar; 12():176. PubMed ID: 22404911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cost-effectiveness of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based dynamic approach.
Welte R; Kretzschmar M; Leidl R; van den Hoek A; Jager JC; Postma MJ
Sex Transm Dis; 2000 Oct; 27(9):518-29. PubMed ID: 11034526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Predicting the population impact of chlamydia screening programmes: comparative mathematical modelling study.
Kretzschmar M; Turner KM; Barton PM; Edmunds WJ; Low N
Sex Transm Infect; 2009 Sep; 85(5):359-66. PubMed ID: 19454407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Systematic selection of screening participants by risk score in a Chlamydia screening programme is feasible and effective.
van den Broek IV; Brouwers EE; Götz HM; van Bergen JE; Op de Coul EL; Fennema JS; Koekenbier RH; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; Hoebe CJ
Sex Transm Infect; 2012 Apr; 88(3):205-11. PubMed ID: 22215696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The added value of chlamydia screening between 2008-2010 in reaching young people in addition to chlamydia testing in regular care; an observational study.
van Liere GA; Dukers-Muijrers NH; van Bergen JE; Götz HM; Stals F; Hoebe CJ
BMC Infect Dis; 2014 Nov; 14():612. PubMed ID: 25403312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparative model-based analysis of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis infections.
Kretzschmar M; Welte R; van den Hoek A; Postma MJ
Am J Epidemiol; 2001 Jan; 153(1):90-101. PubMed ID: 11159151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Non-participation in chlamydia screening in The Netherlands: determinants associated with young people's intention to participate in chlamydia screening.
ten Hoor GA; Ruiter RA; van Bergen JE; Hoebe CJ; Houben K; Kok G
BMC Public Health; 2013 Nov; 13():1091. PubMed ID: 24266906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Rationale, design, and results of the first screening round of a comprehensive, register-based, Chlamydia screening implementation programme in the Netherlands.
van Bergen JE; Fennema JS; van den Broek IV; Brouwers EE; de Feijter EM; Hoebe CJ; Koekenbier RH; de Coul EL; van Ravesteijn SM; Götz HM
BMC Infect Dis; 2010 Oct; 10():293. PubMed ID: 20925966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Acceptability of the internet-based Chlamydia screening implementation in the Netherlands and insights into nonresponse.
Greenland KE; Op de Coul EL; van Bergen JE; Brouwers EE; Fennema HJ; Götz HM; Hoebe CJ; Koekenbier RH; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; van den Broek IV
Sex Transm Dis; 2011 Jun; 38(6):467-74. PubMed ID: 21217416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Modeling prevention strategies for gonorrhea and Chlamydia using stochastic network simulations.
Kretzschmar M; van Duynhoven YT; Severijnen AJ
Am J Epidemiol; 1996 Aug; 144(3):306-17. PubMed ID: 8686700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of screening and partner notification on Chlamydia positivity in the United States: a modeling study.
Kretzschmar M; Satterwhite C; Leichliter J; Berman S
Sex Transm Dis; 2012 May; 39(5):325-31. PubMed ID: 22504590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands.
van Bergen J; Götz HM; Richardus JH; Hoebe CJ; Broer J; Coenen AJ;
Sex Transm Infect; 2005 Feb; 81(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 15681716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mathematical modeling study of school-based chlamydia screening: potential impact on chlamydia prevalence in intervention schools and surrounding communities.
Rönn MM; Dunville R; Wang LY; Bellerose M; Malyuta Y; Menzies NA; Aslam M; Lewis F; Walker-Baban C; Asbel L; Parchem S; Masinter L; Perez E; Gift TL; Hsu K; Barrios LC; Salomon JA
BMC Public Health; 2020 Sep; 20(1):1363. PubMed ID: 32891137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Study protocol of the iMPaCT project: a longitudinal cohort study assessing psychological determinants, sexual behaviour and chlamydia (re)infections in heterosexual STI clinic visitors.
van Wees DA; Heijne JCM; Heijman T; Kampman KCJG; Westra K; de Vries A; Kretzschmar MEE; den Daas C
BMC Infect Dis; 2018 Nov; 18(1):559. PubMed ID: 30424737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis among the sexually active population of Amsterdam. Il Over 90% participation and almost 5% prevalence].
van den Hoek JA; Mulder-Folkerts DK; Coutinho RA; Dukers NH; Buimer M; van Doornum GJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Mar; 143(13):668-72. PubMed ID: 10321299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
