AIM: To compare computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) with routine face-to-face interview (FTFI) for sexual history taking from patients in a clinical setting. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in 2005. New, walk-in patients triaged into the centre were eligible for the study. Those who consented to the study were randomly allocated (initially at a ratio of 2:1, then 1:1) to either CASI or FTFI. Those randomised to CASI also subsequently undertook FTFI. RESULTS: During the study period, of 713 patients approached, 611 agreed to participate in the study; 356 were randomised to FTFI and 255 to CASI. Overall, the responses to questioning using CASI and FTFI were similar except that women undertaking the CASI reported a significantly higher median number of male partners for the preceding 12 months (3 v 2, p = 0.05) and the CASI participants reported previous hepatitis B vaccination more often (50% v 37%, p = 0.01). Most participants found the CASI either easy (31; 13%) or very easy (193; 82%) to complete; 83 (35%) were comfortable and 121 (51%) were very comfortable with it. CONCLUSIONS:CASI may be a reliable, efficient and highly acceptable method for the screening of sexual risk in clinical sexual health settings and could be used routinely to improve the efficiency of clinical services.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) with routine face-to-face interview (FTFI) for sexual history taking from patients in a clinical setting. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in 2005. New, walk-in patients triaged into the centre were eligible for the study. Those who consented to the study were randomly allocated (initially at a ratio of 2:1, then 1:1) to either CASI or FTFI. Those randomised to CASI also subsequently undertook FTFI. RESULTS: During the study period, of 713 patients approached, 611 agreed to participate in the study; 356 were randomised to FTFI and 255 to CASI. Overall, the responses to questioning using CASI and FTFI were similar except that women undertaking the CASI reported a significantly higher median number of male partners for the preceding 12 months (3 v 2, p = 0.05) and the CASI participants reported previous hepatitis B vaccination more often (50% v 37%, p = 0.01). Most participants found the CASI either easy (31; 13%) or very easy (193; 82%) to complete; 83 (35%) were comfortable and 121 (51%) were very comfortable with it. CONCLUSIONS: CASI may be a reliable, efficient and highly acceptable method for the screening of sexual risk in clinical sexual health settings and could be used routinely to improve the efficiency of clinical services.
Authors: S M Rogers; G Willis; A Al-Tayyib; M A Villarroel; C F Turner; L Ganapathi; J Zenilman; R Jadack Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Martina Schmidt; Nilofar Rizvi; David M Lee; Vanessa Wood; Suzanne Amisano; Christopher K Fairley Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Ann E Kurth; Diane P Martin; Matthew R Golden; Noel S Weiss; Patrick J Heagerty; Freya Spielberg; H Hunter Handsfield; King K Holmes Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Kristen R Moore; Stephen R Cole; Dirk P Dittmer; Victor J Schoenbach; Jennifer S Smith; Donna D Baird Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Christine M Khosropour; Julia C Dombrowksi; James P Hughes; Lisa E Manhart; Matthew R Golden Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Sandra A Springer; Angela Di Paola; Marwan M Azar; Russell Barbour; Breanne E Biondi; Maureen Desabrais; Thomas Lincoln; Daniel J Skiest; Frederick L Altice Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Patricia Kissinger; W Evan Secor; Jami S Leichliter; Rebecca A Clark; Norine Schmidt; Erink Curtin; David H Martin Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Vinita S Rane; Christopher K Fairley; Ajith Weerakoon; Timothy H Read; Glenda Fehler; Marcus Y Chen; Catriona S Bradshaw Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 5.948