Literature DB >> 22399277

Comparative effectiveness of two self-collected sample kit distribution systems for chlamydia screening on a university campus.

Wiley D Jenkins1, Rob Weis, Paula Campbell, Mathilda Barnes, Perry Barnes, Charlotte Gaydos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) rates and incidence continue to increase, and university students are known to engage in high-risk activities, but studies of CT prevalence in this population are limited by poor screening rates. Utilisation of self-obtained sample (SoS) kits in private student residencies may reduce screening barriers. The authors sought to determine the relative effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, of two SoS kit distribution mechanisms: one which provided kits directly to students and another encouraging students to order kits from a website.
METHODS: During 2010-2011, residents of six university dormitories were provided training sessions describing CT, the project and SoS kit use. Students in three dormitories were provided kits, and the remaining students directed to the website (http://www.iwantthekit.org).
RESULTS: Of 391 resident students, 163 were provided with kits and 175 were directed to the website. Of provided kits, 12 (8 women) were returned and 2 (16.7%; both women) were positive. Of only three internet-requested kits, all were returned (all women) and none were positive. In a post-project survey examining non-participation, 26.2% of students were unaware of the project (no difference by dormitory or gender) and 58.5% of women cited prior testing as part of a medical exam.
CONCLUSIONS: Though direct kit distribution was more effective in student screening engagement, overall participation was poor despite widespread advertising. The methodology of online testing and SoS kits has been well validated elsewhere, but research is needed to successfully engage university students in screening and refine SoS target populations in light of changing healthcare policies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22399277      PMCID: PMC3689207          DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050379

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sex Transm Infect        ISSN: 1368-4973            Impact factor:   3.519


  26 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.  American College Health Association - National College Health Assessment spring 2007 reference group data report (abridged).

Authors: 
Journal:  J Am Coll Health       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr

3.  Long-term trends in Chlamydia trachomatis infections and related outcomes in a U.S. managed care population.

Authors:  Delia Scholes; Catherine L Satterwhite; Onchee Yu; David Fine; Hillard Weinstock; Stuart Berman
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.830

4.  Cost-effectiveness of five strategies for gonorrhea and chlamydia control among female and male emergency department patients.

Authors:  Supriya D Mehta; David Bishai; M Rene Howell; Richard E Rothman; Thomas C Quinn; Jonathan M Zenilman
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections among female adolescents aged 14 to 19 in the United States.

Authors:  Sara E Forhan; Sami L Gottlieb; Maya R Sternberg; Fujie Xu; S Deblina Datta; Geraldine M McQuillan; Stuart M Berman; Lauri E Markowitz
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2009-11-23       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Risk factors for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a California collegiate population.

Authors:  Diane L Sipkin; Alix Gillam; Laurie Bisset Grady
Journal:  J Am Coll Health       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct

7.  Sexual behaviors and safer sex practices of college students on a commuter campus.

Authors:  A Prince; A L Bernard
Journal:  J Am Coll Health       Date:  1998-07

8.  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

9.  Online-mediated syphilis testing: feasibility, efficacy, and usage.

Authors:  Rik H Koekenbier; Udi Davidovich; Edwin J M van Leent; Harold F J Thiesbrummel; Han S A Fennema
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Rationale, design, and results of the first screening round of a comprehensive, register-based, Chlamydia screening implementation programme in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Jan E A M van Bergen; Johannes S A Fennema; Ingrid V F van den Broek; Elfi E H G Brouwers; Eva M de Feijter; Christian J P A Hoebe; Rik H Koekenbier; Eline L M Op de Coul; Sander M van Ravesteijn; Hannelore M Götz
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 3.090

View more
  4 in total

1.  Vouchers versus Lotteries: What works best in promoting Chlamydia screening? A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Claudia Niza; Caroline Rudisill; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Appl Econ Perspect Policy       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 4.083

Review 2.  Diagnostic Infectious Diseases Testing Outside Clinics: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Eneyi E Kpokiri; Gifty Marley; Weiming Tang; Noah Fongwen; Dan Wu; Sima Berendes; Bhavana Ambil; Sarah-Jane Loveday; Ranga Sampath; Jennifer S Walker; Joseph K B Matovu; Catharina Boehme; Nitika Pant Pai; Joseph D Tucker
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 3.835

Review 3.  Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Outside the Clinic--Implications for the Modern Sexually Transmitted Disease Program.

Authors:  Kyle T Bernstein; Joan M Chow; Preeti Pathela; Thomas L Gift
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.830

4.  Using intervention mapping for the development of a targeted secure web-based outreach strategy named SafeFriend, for Chlamydia trachomatis testing in young people at risk.

Authors:  Kevin A T M Theunissen; Christian J P A Hoebe; Rik Crutzen; Chakib Kara-Zaïtri; Nanne K de Vries; Jan E A M van Bergen; Marianne A B van der Sande; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 3.295

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.