BACKGROUND: Preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STD) such as Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) remains a public health challenge. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggests STD screening among men will likely lead to a decrease in infection rates of women. However, innovative approaches are necessary to increase the traditionally low rates of male screening. The purpose of this study is to compare the acceptability and effectiveness of home-based versus clinic-based urine screening for CT and GC in men. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial of 200 men aged 18 to 45 years who reside in St. Louis, MO. Men were enrolled via telephone and randomly assigned to receive a free urine CT/GC screening kit either in-person at the research clinic or to have it mailed to the participant's preferred address. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and 10 to 12 weeks postenrollment. The primary outcome was whether STD screening was completed. RESULTS: Sixty percent (120/200) completed STD screening. Men assigned to home-based screening were 60% more likely to complete screening compared with clinic-based screening (72% vs. 48%, RRadj = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.3, 2.00). We identified 4 cases of CT or GC in the home-based group compared with 3 cases of CT in the clinic group. Men who completed screening were significantly more likely to be white, younger, and college educated. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based screening for CT and GC among men is more acceptable than clinic-based screening and resulted in higher rates of screening completion. Incorporating home-based methods as adjuncts to traditional STD screening options shows promise in improving STD screening rates in men.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STD) such as Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) remains a public health challenge. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggests STD screening among men will likely lead to a decrease in infection rates of women. However, innovative approaches are necessary to increase the traditionally low rates of male screening. The purpose of this study is to compare the acceptability and effectiveness of home-based versus clinic-based urine screening for CT and GC in men. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial of 200 men aged 18 to 45 years who reside in St. Louis, MO. Men were enrolled via telephone and randomly assigned to receive a free urine CT/GC screening kit either in-person at the research clinic or to have it mailed to the participant's preferred address. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and 10 to 12 weeks postenrollment. The primary outcome was whether STD screening was completed. RESULTS: Sixty percent (120/200) completed STD screening. Men assigned to home-based screening were 60% more likely to complete screening compared with clinic-based screening (72% vs. 48%, RRadj = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.3, 2.00). We identified 4 cases of CT or GC in the home-based group compared with 3 cases of CT in the clinic group. Men who completed screening were significantly more likely to be white, younger, and college educated. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based screening for CT and GC among men is more acceptable than clinic-based screening and resulted in higher rates of screening completion. Incorporating home-based methods as adjuncts to traditional STD screening options shows promise in improving STD screening rates in men.
Authors: Hannelore M Götz; Irene K Veldhuijzen; Jan E A M van Bergen; Christian J P A Hoebe; Onno de Zwart; Jan H Richardus; J E A M van Bergen; J Broer; A J J Coenen; H M Götz; F de Groot; C J P A Hoebe; J H Richardus; D T van Schaik; I K Veldhuijzen; M J C Verhooren Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: R A Gunn; G D Podschun; S Fitzgerald; M F Hovell; C E Farshy; C M Black; J R Greenspan Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 2.830
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
Authors: K S Smith; J M Kaldor; J S Hocking; M S Jamil; A M McNulty; P Read; C S Bradshaw; M Y Chen; C K Fairley; H Wand; K Worthington; S Blake; V Knight; W Rawlinson; M Saville; S N Tabrizi; S M Garland; B Donovan; R Guy Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 3.295