Monika K Goyal1, Stephen J Teach2, Gia M Badolato3, Maria Trent4, James M Chamberlain2. 1. Children's National Health System, Washington, DC; Departments of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC. Electronic address: mgoyal@childrensnational.org. 2. Children's National Health System, Washington, DC; Departments of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC. 3. Children's National Health System, Washington, DC. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate acceptance of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening and measure STI prevalence in an asymptomatic adolescent emergency department (ED) population. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospectively enrolled cross-sectional study of 14- to 21-year-old patients who sought care at an urban pediatric ED with non-STI related complaints. Participants completed a computer-assisted questionnaire to collect demographic and behavioral data and were asked to provide a urine sample to screen for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection. We calculated STI screening acceptance and STI prevalence. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with screening acceptance and presence of infection. RESULTS: Of 553 enrolled patients, 326 (59.0%) agreed to be screened for STIs. STI screening acceptability was associated with having public health insurance (aOR 1.7; 1.1, 2.5) and being sexually active (sexually active but denying high risk activity [aOR 1.7; 1.1, 2.5]; sexually active and reporting high risk activity [aOR 2.6; 1.5, 4.6]). Sixteen patients (4.9%; 95% CI 2.6, 7.3) had an asymptomatic STI. High-risk sexual behavior (aOR 7.2; 1.4, 37.7) and preferential use of the ED rather than primary care for acute medical needs (aOR 4.0; 1.3, 12.3) were associated with STI. CONCLUSIONS: STI screening is acceptable to adolescents in the ED, especially among those who declare sexual experience. Overall, there was a low prevalence of asymptomatic STI. Risk of STI was higher among youth engaging in high-risk sexual behavior and those relying on the ED for acute health care access. Targeted screening interventions may be more efficient than universal screening for STI detection in the ED.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate acceptance of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening and measure STI prevalence in an asymptomatic adolescent emergency department (ED) population. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospectively enrolled cross-sectional study of 14- to 21-year-old patients who sought care at an urban pediatric ED with non-STI related complaints. Participants completed a computer-assisted questionnaire to collect demographic and behavioral data and were asked to provide a urine sample to screen for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection. We calculated STI screening acceptance and STI prevalence. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with screening acceptance and presence of infection. RESULTS: Of 553 enrolled patients, 326 (59.0%) agreed to be screened for STIs. STI screening acceptability was associated with having public health insurance (aOR 1.7; 1.1, 2.5) and being sexually active (sexually active but denying high risk activity [aOR 1.7; 1.1, 2.5]; sexually active and reporting high risk activity [aOR 2.6; 1.5, 4.6]). Sixteen patients (4.9%; 95% CI 2.6, 7.3) had an asymptomatic STI. High-risk sexual behavior (aOR 7.2; 1.4, 37.7) and preferential use of the ED rather than primary care for acute medical needs (aOR 4.0; 1.3, 12.3) were associated with STI. CONCLUSIONS: STI screening is acceptable to adolescents in the ED, especially among those who declare sexual experience. Overall, there was a low prevalence of asymptomatic STI. Risk of STI was higher among youth engaging in high-risk sexual behavior and those relying on the ED for acute health care access. Targeted screening interventions may be more efficient than universal screening for STI detection in the ED.
Authors: M Jane Park; Tina Paul Mulye; Sally H Adams; Claire D Brindis; Charles E Irwin Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2006-07-10 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Bernard M Branson; H Hunter Handsfield; Margaret A Lampe; Robert S Janssen; Allan W Taylor; Sheryl B Lyss; Jill E Clark Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2006-09-22
Authors: Monika K Goyal; Joel A Fein; Gia M Badolato; Judy A Shea; Maria E Trent; Stephen J Teach; Theoklis E Zaoutis; James M Chamberlain Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Michelle L Pickett; Marlene D Melzer-Lange; Melissa K Miller; Seema Menon; Alexis M Vistocky; Amy L Drendel Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Julie Weisman; Alyse Chase; Gia M Badolato; Stephen J Teach; Maria E Trent; James M Chamberlain; Monika K Goyal Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Melissa K Miller; Lauren S Chernick; Monika K Goyal; Jennifer L Reed; Fahd A Ahmad; Erin F Hoehn; Michelle S Pickett; Kristin Stukus; Cynthia J Mollen Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jennifer L Reed; Brittany E Punches; Regina G Taylor; Maurizio Macaluso; Evaline A Alessandrini; Jessica A Kahn Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Lauren S Chernick; Thomas H Chun; Rachel Richards; Julie R Bromberg; Fahd A Ahmad; Brett McAninch; Colette Mull; Rohit Shenoi; Brian Suffoletto; Charlie Casper; James Linakis; Anthony Spirito Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Abbey R Masonbrink; Troy Richardson; Russell J McCulloh; Matt Hall; Jessica L Bettenhausen; Jacqueline M Walker; Matthew B Johnson; Mary Ann Queen; Jessica L Markham; Monika K Goyal Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 5.012