Literature DB >> 20308834

Home screening compared with clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections.

Anna S Graseck1, Gina M Secura, Jenifer E Allsworth, Tessa Madden, Jeffrey F Peipert.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate completion rate and acceptability of home screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with clinic-based screening in a prospective cohort study.
METHODS: The first 462 women enrolled in the Contraceptive Choice Project were screened at the 12-month follow-up for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae using strand displacement analysis of self-collected vaginal swabs. In a telephone interview, participants were given a choice of no-cost screening with swabs mailed to the participant's home (home-based) or screening that was available at area family planning clinics without an appointment (clinic-based). The clinic-based group also included women who elected to screen with their regular provider according to the clinician's normal practice. We analyzed the rates of screening, including patient preference and the proportion of completed tests by testing method.
RESULTS: Women were more likely to choose to screen for STIs at home than at a clinic or with their own medical provider (75.7% compared with 16.1% compared with 8.2%, P<.001). Women choosing clinic testing were more likely to be African American than those choosing home testing. African-American women constituted 42% of the clinic group compared with 28% of the home group (relative risk [RR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-2.31). The groups did not differ in other demographic characteristics, STI risk factors, or access to health care. Overall, 228 women (56.6%) completed screening. Women who chose home-based testing were more likely to complete a test compared with all clinic-based testers (64.6% compared with 31.6%, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.51-2.76).
CONCLUSION: Women overwhelmingly preferred to screen for STIs at home. Future interventions to increase screening rates in young women should consider alternative screening strategies such as home-based or patient-controlled testing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20308834      PMCID: PMC3119481          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d4450d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  21 in total

1.  Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes.

Authors:  Louise-Anne McNutt; Chuntao Wu; Xiaonan Xue; Jean Paul Hafner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  STD screening, testing, case reporting, and clinical and partner notification practices: a national survey of US physicians.

Authors:  Janet S St Lawrence; Daniel E Montaño; Danuta Kasprzyk; William R Phillips; Keira Armstrong; Jami S Leichliter
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Self-collection of vaginal swabs for the detection of Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis: opportunity to encourage sexually transmitted disease testing among adolescents.

Authors:  H C Wiesenfeld; D L Lowry; R P Heine; M A Krohn; H Bittner; K Kellinger; M Shultz; R L Sweet
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.830

4.  Community-based chlamydia and gonorrhea screening through the United States mail, San Francisco.

Authors:  Peter J Bloomfield; Charlotte Kent; Diane Campbell; Larry Hanbrook; Jeffrey D Klausner
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  Chlamydia screening among sexually active young female enrollees of health plans--United States, 1999-2001.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2004-10-29       Impact factor: 17.586

6.  From the NIH: proceedings of a workshop on the importance of self-obtained vaginal specimens for detection of sexually transmitted infections.

Authors:  Marcia M Hobbs; Barbara van der Pol; Patricia Totten; Charlotte A Gaydos; Anna Wald; Terri Warren; Rachel L Winer; Robert L Cook; Carolyn D Deal; M Elizabeth Rogers; Julius Schachter; King K Holmes; David H Martin
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.830

7.  Chlamydia screening among sexually active young female enrollees of health plans--United States, 2000-2007.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 17.586

8.  Indirect estimation of Chlamydia screening coverage using public health surveillance data.

Authors:  William C Levine; Linda W Dicker; Owen Devine; Debra J Mosure
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Chlamydia screening of youth and young adults in non-clinical settings throughout California.

Authors:  Heidi M Bauer; Maggie Chartier; Eric Kessell; Laura Packel; Monique Brammeier; Malaika Little; Gail Bolan
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000.

Authors:  Hillard Weinstock; Stuart Berman; Willard Cates
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb
View more
  20 in total

1.  Home compared with clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Anna S Graseck; Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Tessa Madden; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  Home versus clinic-based specimen collection for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

Authors:  Anna S Graseck; Shirley L Shih; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.091

Review 3.  Screening for sexually transmitted infections at home or in the clinic?

Authors:  Shirley L Shih; Anna S Graseck; Gina M Secura; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Curr Opin Infect Dis       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.915

4.  Chlamydia trachomatis age-specific prevalence in women who used an internet-based self-screening program compared to women who were screened in family planning clinics.

Authors:  Charlotte A Gaydos; Mathilda Barnes; Bulbul Aumakhan; Nicole Quinn; Catherine Wright; Patricia Agreda; Pamela Whittle; Terry Hogan
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  Chlamydia trachomatis Infection: Screening and Management.

Authors:  Mary B Keegan; Justin T Diedrich; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  J Clin Outcomes Manag       Date:  2014-01

6.  Trichomonas vaginalis infection in women who submit self-obtained vaginal samples after internet recruitment.

Authors:  Charlotte A Gaydos; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Mathilda Barnes; Nicole Quinn; Patricia Agreda; Mary Jett-Goheen; Pamela Whittle; Terry Hogan
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.830

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening via internet-based self-collected swabs compared with clinic-based sample collection.

Authors:  Wei Huang; Charlotte A Gaydos; Mathilda R Barnes; Mary Jett-Goheen; Diane R Blake
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.830

8.  Could home sexually transmitted infection specimen collection with e-prescription be a cost-effective strategy for clinical trials and clinical care?

Authors:  Diane R Blake; Freya Spielberg; Vivian Levy; Shelly Lensing; Peter A Wolff; Lalitha Venkatasubramanian; Nincoshka Acevedo; Nancy Padian; Ishita Chattopadhyay; Charlotte A Gaydos
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.830

9.  Acceptability of home-based chlamydia and gonorrhea testing among a national sample of sexual minority young adults.

Authors:  Annie-Laurie McRee; Allahna Esber; Paul L Reiter
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2015-03

10.  Trichomonas vaginalis infection in men who submit self-collected penile swabs after internet recruitment.

Authors:  Charlotte A Gaydos; Mathilda R Barnes; Nicole Quinn; Mary Jett-Goheen; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 3.519

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.