Literature DB >> 21124216

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

Shirley L Shih1, Anna S Graseck, Gina M Secura, Jeffrey F Peipert.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim is to assess the evidence in support of home-based versus clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections. RECENT
FINDINGS: Home-based screening for sexually transmitted infections has been shown to be a feasible approach for men and women from a variety of settings, including high-risk, low-income, and resource-poor communities. In recent studies, the testing rate with home-based screening was up to 11 times greater than the testing rate with clinic-based screening. For most individuals, self-collection and testing of urine or vaginal specimens at home was considered to be easy, acceptable, and often preferred over testing at a clinic. There is limited evidence with regard to the cost effectiveness of home-based versus clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections. However, a study from the United States concluded that home-based screening is cost saving.
SUMMARY: Improvements in screening rates for sexually transmitted infections can be achieved with home-based screening methods. Making low-cost home test kits available may encourage at-risk young individuals with less access to clinic care, who may not otherwise be screened, to self-test for sexually transmitted infections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21124216      PMCID: PMC3125396          DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32834204a8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Infect Dis        ISSN: 0951-7375            Impact factor:   4.915


  28 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

2.  Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in the Netherlands suggests selective screening approaches. Results from the PILOT CT Population Study.

Authors:  J van Bergen; H Götz; J H Richardus; C Hoebe; J Broer; T Coenen
Journal:  Drugs Today (Barc)       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.245

3.  Lessons learned from a population-based chlamydia screening pilot.

Authors:  Hannelore M Götz; Jan E A M van Bergen; Irene K Veldhuijzen; Christian J P A Hoebe; Jan Broer; A J J Coenen; F de Groot; M J C Verhooren; D T van Schaik; Jan H Richardus
Journal:  Int J STD AIDS       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.359

4.  Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study.

Authors:  John Macleod; Chris Salisbury; Nicola Low; Anne McCarthy; Jonathan A C Sterne; Aisha Holloway; Rita Patel; Emma Sanford; Andrea Morcom; Paddy Horner; George Davey Smith; Susan Skidmore; Alan Herring; Owen Caul; F D Richard Hobbs; Matthias Egger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-04-04

5.  Home screening for sexually transmitted diseases in high-risk young women: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Robert L Cook; Lars Østergaard; Sharon L Hillier; Pamela J Murray; Chung-Chou H Chang; Diane M Comer; Roberta B Ness
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 3.519

6.  Can we evaluate population screening strategies in UK general practice? A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection.

Authors:  Abiola Senok; Phil Wilson; Margaret Reid; Anne Scoular; Neil Craig; Alex McConnachie; Bridie Fitzpatrick; Alison MacDonald
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Home-based self-sampling and self-testing for sexually transmitted infections: acceptable and feasible alternatives to provider-based screening in low-income women in São Paulo, Brazil.

Authors:  Sheri A Lippman; Heidi E Jones; Carla G Luppi; Adriana A Pinho; Maria Amelia M S Veras; Janneke H H M van de Wijgert
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.830

8.  Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study.

Authors:  D P Novak; R B Karlsson
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.519

9.  Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project.

Authors:  Tracy E Roberts; Suzanne Robinson; Pelham M Barton; Stirling Bryan; Anne McCarthy; John Macleod; Matthias Egger; Nicola Low
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-07-26

10.  Chlamydia trachomatis testing among 13-25-year-olds in non-genitourinary medicine settings.

Authors:  Lisa M Williamson; Gordon Scott; Katy Carrick-Anderson; Kirsten Kernaghan; Graham J Hart
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2007-07
View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Efficacy of interventions to increase the uptake of chlamydia screening in primary care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rebecca J Guy; Hammad Ali; Bette Liu; Simone Poznanski; James Ward; Basil Donovan; John Kaldor; Jane Hocking
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 3.090

Review 2.  Obtaining self-samples to diagnose curable sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review of patients' experiences.

Authors:  Priyamvada Paudyal; Carrie Llewellyn; Jason Lau; Mohammad Mahmud; Helen Smith
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Self-collection of samples as an additional approach to deliver testing services for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yasmin Ogale; Ping Teresa Yeh; Caitlin E Kennedy; Igor Toskin; Manjulaa Narasimhan
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2019-04-22

4.  Internet-based self-sampling for Chlamydia trachomatis testing: a national evaluation in Sweden.

Authors:  Joakim Söderqvist; Karolina Gullsby; Lisa Stark; Maria Wikman; Roger Karlsson; Bjőrn Herrmann
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 3.519

5.  Pilot implementation of a home-care programme with chlamydia, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis self-sampling in HIV-positive men who have sex with men.

Authors:  J Leenen; C J P A Hoebe; R P Ackens; D Posthouwer; I H M van Loo; P F G Wolffs; N H T M Dukers-Muijrers
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 3.090

6.  Acceptability and efficacy of vaginal self-sampling for genital infection and bacterial vaginosis: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Claire Camus; Guillaume Penaranda; Hacène Khiri; Sabine Camiade; Lucie Molet; Melissa Lebsir; Anne Plauzolles; Laurent Chiche; Bernard Blanc; Edwin Quarello; Philippe Halfon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Home-based versus clinic-based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.

Authors:  Luisa Fajardo-Bernal; Johanna Aponte-Gonzalez; Patrick Vigil; Edith Angel-Müller; Carlos Rincon; Hernando G Gaitán; Nicola Low
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-09-29

Review 8.  Home-based chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening: a systematic review of strategies and outcomes.

Authors:  Muhammad S Jamil; Jane S Hocking; Heidi M Bauer; Hammad Ali; Handan Wand; Kirsty Smith; Jennifer Walker; Basil Donovan; John M Kaldor; Rebecca J Guy
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 3.295

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.