Skip to main content

Table 2 Eligibility criteria using PICOTS for Key Question 3: Outcome valuation

From: Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review

Criteria Inclusion Exclusion
Population Non-pregnant sexually active individuals*
Population subgroups:
a) Population recruitment/identification strategy: clinician office (family doctor, pediatrician, nurse) vs. community health site (e.g., emergency room, school health clinic, pharmacy, sexual health/abortion/fertility clinics) vs. outreach program (e.g., field visits to homes, sex venues, bathhouses, homeless shelters, mobile vans, recreational or educational settings, online) vs. population register-based program not affiliated with health setting
b) Current or previous infection with chlamydia or gonorrhea vs. not; current or previous experience of a primary outcome vs. not
c) Demographics: age (10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-49, 50+ years), sex (female vs male)
d) Asymptomatic only (as determined by authors) vs. all people not presenting with symptoms
e) High risk individuals based on sexual behaviors and/or other factors, as defined by authors of primary studies
▪ Pregnant women
Exposure Experience with any screening program for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea; experience with infection or outcomes of interest; exposure to scenarios about screening process and possible outcomes of screening (benefits and harms)
Focus of study is on consideration of possible, or assessment of definite, outcomes from screening. Studies of patients with outcomes (e.g., pelvic inflammatory disease) do not have to exclusively enroll patients with current or history of STIs.
Comparison Depending on study design, comparator may be no screening or another form of screening, or the study may not have a comparator. When only one arm (e.g. screening) of a comparative study is included in the assessment of patient preferences, this study will be classified as a non-comparative study.  
Outcomes • Utilities/health state valuations
• Non-utility, quantitative information on relative importance of benefits and harms (e.g., willingness to be screened, screening uptake, relative ratings/rankings, preference weights, willingness to pay, probability trade-offs)
• Qualitative information indicating relative importance between benefits and harms
All outcomes will only be in relation to the primary outcomes for KQ 1 and 2.
Timing ▪ Follow-up duration: any or none
▪ Published: 1996 – present (post NAATs)
Setting ▪ Any setting
▪ High and Very High Human Development Index countries
Study Design ▪ Any experimental or qualitative study design (e.g., stated and revealed preference studies [e.g. contingent analysis or valuation studies including discrete choice experiments, willingness to pay], studies directly [e.g., time-trade-off, standard gamble] or indirectly [mapping of health status instruments to quality of life scale] measuring health-state utility weights, surveys, qualitative studies) ▪ Studies only published/available as conference proceedings or other gray literature (e.g., government reports), unless information on study design (e.g., eligibility criteria, participant characteristics, presentation of scenarios) is available (accessible online or via author contact) and sufficient to assess methodological quality.
Language ▪ English
▪ French
▪ Non- English/French articles
  1. *Studies that are reporting on health state values for people with experience of the outcomes of interest (e.g., PID) that may have been caused by another infectious source do not have to only include sexually active individuals