Lucy Smartlowit-Briggs1, Cynthia Pearson, Patricia Whitefoot, Bianca N Altamirano, Michelle Womack, Marie Bastin, Julia C Dombrowski. 1. From the *Awatam Consulting, Yakima, WA; †Indigenous Wellness Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; ‡Toppenish School District, Toppenish, WA; §Indian Health Services, Yakama Nation, Toppenish, WA; ¶Center for AIDS and STD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; ∥Public Health-Seattle & King County HIV/STD Program, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates of chlamydial infection in American Indian/Alaska Native women in the United States are approximately 4-fold those in non-Hispanic white women. We conducted a community-based survey of self-identified American Indian/Alaska Native women 14 to 25 years of age on a reservation in the Northwestern United States to inform a chlamydia screening strategy. METHODS: The anonymous survey assessed respondents' knowledge, perceptions, and preferences related to chlamydia screening, results receipt, and partner notification. We recruited women using respondent-driven sampling, school-based sampling, and direct recruitment through social media and fliers. Participants in schools completed the survey as a paper-based, self-administered survey. Other participants could complete the survey in person, by phone as an interviewer-administered survey, or online. RESULTS: We recruited 162 participants, most in schools (n = 83; 51%) or by peer referral (n = 55; 34%). Only 1 woman completed the survey online. Thirty-one respondents (19%) reported a history of an unplanned first pregnancy, and 19 (12%) reported a history of a diagnosed sexually transmitted disease. Most women (n = 98; 63%) recognized the potential impact of Chlamydia trachomatis on fertility. The preferred site for chlamydia screening was the Indian Health Service Clinic (n = 114; 70%), but 79 women (41%) would accept a C. trachomatis test at a nonclinical testing site. Of the 56 women (35%) who would accept home testing, most preferred to get the test kit from a clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Indian Health Service efforts to increase chlamydia screening in the clinic and through outreach may be more successful than promotion of home testing in this population.
BACKGROUND: Rates of chlamydial infection in American Indian/Alaska Native women in the United States are approximately 4-fold those in non-Hispanic white women. We conducted a community-based survey of self-identified American Indian/Alaska Native women 14 to 25 years of age on a reservation in the Northwestern United States to inform a chlamydia screening strategy. METHODS: The anonymous survey assessed respondents' knowledge, perceptions, and preferences related to chlamydia screening, results receipt, and partner notification. We recruited women using respondent-driven sampling, school-based sampling, and direct recruitment through social media and fliers. Participants in schools completed the survey as a paper-based, self-administered survey. Other participants could complete the survey in person, by phone as an interviewer-administered survey, or online. RESULTS: We recruited 162 participants, most in schools (n = 83; 51%) or by peer referral (n = 55; 34%). Only 1 woman completed the survey online. Thirty-one respondents (19%) reported a history of an unplanned first pregnancy, and 19 (12%) reported a history of a diagnosed sexually transmitted disease. Most women (n = 98; 63%) recognized the potential impact of Chlamydia trachomatis on fertility. The preferred site for chlamydia screening was the Indian Health Service Clinic (n = 114; 70%), but 79 women (41%) would accept a C. trachomatis test at a nonclinical testing site. Of the 56 women (35%) who would accept home testing, most preferred to get the test kit from a clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Indian Health Service efforts to increase chlamydia screening in the clinic and through outreach may be more successful than promotion of home testing in this population.
Authors: Melanie M Taylor; Brigg Reilley; Scott Tulloch; Michelle Winscott; Anthony Dunnigan; Marie Russell; John T Redd Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Harrell W Chesson; Charlotte K Kent; Kwame Owusu-Edusei; Jami S Leichliter; Sevgi O Aral Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Sarah C Woodhall; Lizzi Torrone; David Fine; Sarah G Salomon; Wendy Nakatsukasa-Ono; Kate Soldan; Hillard Weinstock Journal: Sex Health Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: Lauren Tingey; Rachel Strom; Ranelda Hastings; Anthony Parker; Allison Barlow; Anne Rompalo; Charlotte Gaydos Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Matthew R Golden; Roxanne P Kerani; Mark Stenger; James P Hughes; Mark Aubin; Cheryl Malinski; King K Holmes Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 11.069
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