Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;334:703-704 (7 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.39167.545417.80
Opportunistic approaches have little evidence to support them
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Sexual infections and teenage pregnancies disproportionately affect people living in poverty and social exclusion. In 2004, the government white paper "Choosing health"1 identified sexual health as a priority area for improvement and service development. The paper followed the publication of the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV,2 which aims to provide "better prevention, better services, and better sexual health." The strategy described the implementation of a broad National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) in accordance with the National Health Service plan, which included "a commitment to improving the prevention of ill health and providing screening programmes where they are appropriate." In this week's BMJ, an analysis by Low shows how acceptance of the effectiveness of chlamydial screening programmes in Sweden and the United States supported the funding of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme before the balance of benefits and harms was thoroughly understood.3
Chlamydia is the most common sexually
Rachael Jones, consultant physician, Fiona Boag, consultant physician
Department of HIV/Genitourinary Medicine, St Stephen's Centre, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London SW10 9NH
rachael.jones@chelwest.nhs.uk