R A Gunn1, S Fitzgerald, S O Aral. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. rgunnxhe@co.san-diego.ca.us
Abstract
BACKGROUND: From an sexually transmitted disease (STD) intervention perspective, developing a practical way to identify persons in core transmitter groups has been difficult. However, persons who have repeated STD infections may be in such groups. GOAL: To evaluate a self-administered risk assessment approach that would identify STD clinic clients who were at an increased risk of being involved in gonorrhea (GC) or chlamydia (CT) transmission in the subsequent year. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort of consecutive STD clinic clients with a 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: During a 6-month period in 1995, 2576 STD clinic clients in San Diego completed a risk assessment. Of those clients, 204 (7.9%) had a subsequent STD and 79 (3.1%) had a subsequent GC or CT infection during the 1-year follow-up period. The strongest predictor of a subsequent GC/CT was having a recent history or current clinic visit diagnosis of GC or CT (6.1% subsequent GC/CT rate). The more past episodes of GC or CT, the higher the subsequent GC/CT rate. Unsafe sexual behavior had little effect on further increasing subsequent GC/CT risk. CONCLUSION: STD clinic clients with a recent history of GC or CT and a high risk of subsequent GC/CT may be core transmitters who could likely benefit from risk reduction, periodic screening for GC/CT, symptom recognition counseling, and preventive treatment-the essential elements of STD-prevention case management.
BACKGROUND: From an sexually transmitted disease (STD) intervention perspective, developing a practical way to identify persons in core transmitter groups has been difficult. However, persons who have repeated STD infections may be in such groups. GOAL: To evaluate a self-administered risk assessment approach that would identify STD clinic clients who were at an increased risk of being involved in gonorrhea (GC) or chlamydia (CT) transmission in the subsequent year. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort of consecutive STD clinic clients with a 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: During a 6-month period in 1995, 2576 STD clinic clients in San Diego completed a risk assessment. Of those clients, 204 (7.9%) had a subsequent STD and 79 (3.1%) had a subsequent GC or CT infection during the 1-year follow-up period. The strongest predictor of a subsequent GC/CT was having a recent history or current clinic visit diagnosis of GC or CT (6.1% subsequent GC/CT rate). The more past episodes of GC or CT, the higher the subsequent GC/CT rate. Unsafe sexual behavior had little effect on further increasing subsequent GC/CT risk. CONCLUSION: STD clinic clients with a recent history of GC or CT and a high risk of subsequent GC/CT may be core transmitters who could likely benefit from risk reduction, periodic screening for GC/CT, symptom recognition counseling, and preventive treatment-the essential elements of STD-prevention case management.
Authors: P D Benn; G Rooney; C Carder; M Brown; S R Stevenson; A Copas; A J Robinson; G L Ridgway Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2006-10-04 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Ayesha Khan; J Dennis Fortenberry; Beth E Juliar; Wanzhu Tu; Donald P Orr; Byron E Batteiger Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Daniel J Feaster; Carrigan L Parish; Lauren Gooden; Tim Matheson; Pedro C Castellon; Rui Duan; Yue Pan; Louise F Haynes; Bruce R Schackman; C Kevin Malotte; Raul N Mandler; Grant N Colfax; Lisa R Metsch Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: E Pultorak; E Odoyo-June; J Hayombe; F Opiyo; W Odongo; J A Ogollah; S Moses; R C Bailey; S D Mehta Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Patricia J Kissinger; Kathleen Reilly; Stephanie N Taylor; Jami S Leichliter; Susan Rosenthal; David H Martin Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Karin Edgardh; Sharon Kühlmann-Berenzon; Maria Grünewald; Maria Rotzen-Ostlund; Ivar Qvarnström; Jennie Everljung Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 3.295