1. Region I IPP Data Update Region I IPP Advisory Board Meeting
June 6 and 7, 2011
Region I IPP Advisory Board Meeting
1. Data - Progress Toward Objectives -
2. Provider Assessment - Highlights of findings -
3. GIS Maps - (samples - more to come)
4. Other Infrastructure Updates / Next Steps:
Cost Analysis, Ongoing (tx for input)
Project to follow the Provider Assessment (will be working with committee)
Glossary of Terms (? Volunteers)
Change Objective XXX to include "Sexually Active" (?)
Possible Partnerships with Professional Organizations, etc. (? Level of Interest) 1

2. Data Overview Positivity
Progress towards Regional Goals and Objectives 2

3. Testing dropped DRASTICALLY – Ran this with FP only – and NO – did not drop In general – year olds account for a bout 60% of testing (2003 and on)
Nationally it is increasing.
Projected 2009
X 2 = 50330
Projected 2010= 41K 3

4. Chlamydia Positivity in Region I Family Planning Females by Year
% Positive
Shows regionwide positivity over time--inched up in 1999 and has been slowly declining since then
Trend overall is slightly increasing. Last two years it was around 4.5% and this year positivity is around 5 % 4

5. Chlamydia Positivity in Region I Family Planning Females by Year
% Positive
Positivity ranges from around % in our region. No state has ever had positivity greater than 8%,
(although CT had 8.4% in FP clinics this year. 5

6. Regional Goals and Objectives
By 2010, increase CT screening by 10% of sexually active year old women and men. Using 2004 data as the baseline, increase from 38,718 to 42,590 in IPP sites. 6

7. Objective 1.1
Questions – did testing decrease in different age groups or those not with risk factors – cause that’d be good 7

8. Regional Goals and Objectives
By 2010, no more than 5% of women more than 25 years of age with no risk factors will be screened in IPP-funded clinics (i.e., 95% will be screened according to regional screening criteria).

9. Objective 2.2
Presenting real percents, because still have close to a quarter of testing done in age group over 25/26 with NO risk factors 9 9

10. Connecticut Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2.2: ≥95% screened)
It's the Number women 25+ with no risk factors/women 25+.
Note: CT data really only represents Jan-June 2010 because July –Dec did not screen women 25+ 10

11. Maine Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2
Maine Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2.2: ≥95% screened) 11

12. Massachusetts Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2.2: ≥95% screened)12

13. New Hampshire Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2.2: ≥95% screened)13

14. Rhode Island Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2.2: ≥95% screened)14

15. Vermont Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2
Vermont Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2.2: ≥95% screened) 15

16. Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2
Risk Factors Family Planning Clinics, Women, 25+ (Objective 2.2: ≥95% screened) 16

17. Questions?
Need to come up with talking points 17