OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility and acceptability of self-sampling for oropharyngeal and rectal specimens to screen for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men who have sex with men (MSM). Participant's willingness to self-sample at home was also explored. METHODS: Participants of a study to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of self versus nurse taken oropharyngeal and rectal specimens were surveyed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of self-sampling using specimen collection methods (gargle, OraSure mouth pad to collect oropharyngeal specimens and APTIMA unisex swabs to collect rectal and pharyngeal specimens). Acceptability was measured using a five-point Likert-type response scale (for example, 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Open-ended questions explored participants' experiences of self-sampling. RESULTS: Of 334 eligible MSM, 301 (90%) participated in the study. Altogether, 301 participants self-sampled using gargle and rectal and pharyngeal swabs and 288 using mouth pad. Complete questionnaire data from 274 participants showed that feasibility and acceptability of self-sampling using gargle and mouth pad was higher (92%) than pharyngeal swabs (76%). Rectal swabs were acceptable to 82% participants. Despite some discomfort and difficulty in using swabs, 76% were willing to use all four methods for self-sampling in the future. Home sampling was acceptable (84%) as it was perceived to be less intrusive and more convenient than a clinic visit and likely to reduce genitourinary medicine (GUM) waiting time. CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling for rectal and oropharyngeal specimens is feasible and acceptable to MSM. Self-sampling can be offered as an alternative to clinic-based testing and has the potential to improve choice, access and uptake of screening for STIs.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility and acceptability of self-sampling for oropharyngeal and rectal specimens to screen for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men who have sex with men (MSM). Participant's willingness to self-sample at home was also explored. METHODS:Participants of a study to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of self versus nurse taken oropharyngeal and rectal specimens were surveyed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of self-sampling using specimen collection methods (gargle, OraSure mouth pad to collect oropharyngeal specimens and APTIMA unisex swabs to collect rectal and pharyngeal specimens). Acceptability was measured using a five-point Likert-type response scale (for example, 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Open-ended questions explored participants' experiences of self-sampling. RESULTS: Of 334 eligible MSM, 301 (90%) participated in the study. Altogether, 301 participants self-sampled using gargle and rectal and pharyngeal swabs and 288 using mouth pad. Complete questionnaire data from 274 participants showed that feasibility and acceptability of self-sampling using gargle and mouth pad was higher (92%) than pharyngeal swabs (76%). Rectal swabs were acceptable to 82% participants. Despite some discomfort and difficulty in using swabs, 76% were willing to use all four methods for self-sampling in the future. Home sampling was acceptable (84%) as it was perceived to be less intrusive and more convenient than a clinic visit and likely to reduce genitourinary medicine (GUM) waiting time. CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling for rectal and oropharyngeal specimens is feasible and acceptable to MSM. Self-sampling can be offered as an alternative to clinic-based testing and has the potential to improve choice, access and uptake of screening for STIs.
Authors: Randolph D Hubach; Brian Dodge; Alissa Davis; Andrew D Smith; Gregory D Zimet; Barbara Van Der Pol Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Nicholas Yared; Keith Horvath; Oluwaseun Fashanu; Ran Zhao; Jason Baker; Shalini Kulasingam Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: B Sultan; J A White; R Fish; G Carrick; N Brima; A Copas; A Robinson; R Gilson; D Mercey; P Benn Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Christian Grov; Demetria Cain; Thomas H F Whitfield; H Jonathon Rendina; Mark Pawson; Ana Ventuneac; Jeffrey T Parsons Journal: Sex Res Social Policy Date: 2016-03-01
Authors: Christian Grov; Demetria Cain; H Jonathan Rendina; Ana Ventuneac; Jeffrey T Parsons Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Eric P F Chow; Catriona S Bradshaw; Deborah A Williamson; Shauna Hall; Marcus Y Chen; Tiffany R Phillips; Ria Fortune; Kate Maddaford; Christopher K Fairley Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 5.948