Monika K Goyal1, Joel A Fein2, Gia M Badolato3, Judy A Shea4, Maria E Trent5, Stephen J Teach3, Theoklis E Zaoutis2, James M Chamberlain3. 1. Department of Pediatrics & Emergency Medicine, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC. Electronic address: mgoyal@childrensnational.org. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Pediatrics & Emergency Medicine, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether clinical decision support, using computerized sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk assessments, results in increased STI testing of adolescents at high risk for STI. STUDY DESIGN: In a 2-arm, randomized, controlled trial conducted at a single, urban, pediatric emergency department, adolescents completed a computerized sexual health survey. For patients assigned to the intervention arm, attending physicians received decision support to guide STI testing based on the sexual health survey-derived STI risk; in the usual care arm, decision support was not provided. We compared STI testing rates between the intervention and usual care groups, adjusting for potential confounding using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 728 enrolled patients, 635 (87.2%) had evaluable data (323 intervention arm; 312 usual care arm). STI testing frequency was higher in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (52.3% vs 42%; aOR 2 [95% CI 1.1, 3.8]). This effect was even more pronounced among the patients who presented asymptomatic for STI (28.6 vs 8.2%; aOR 4.7 [95% CI 1.4-15.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Providing sexual health survey-derived decision support to emergency department clinicians led to increased testing rates for STI in adolescents at high risk for infection, particularly in those presenting asymptomatic for infection. Studies to understand potential barriers to decision support adherence should be undertaken to inform larger, multicenter studies that could determine the generalizability of these findings and whether this process leads to increased STI detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02509572.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether clinical decision support, using computerized sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk assessments, results in increased STI testing of adolescents at high risk for STI. STUDY DESIGN: In a 2-arm, randomized, controlled trial conducted at a single, urban, pediatric emergency department, adolescents completed a computerized sexual health survey. For patients assigned to the intervention arm, attending physicians received decision support to guide STI testing based on the sexual health survey-derived STI risk; in the usual care arm, decision support was not provided. We compared STI testing rates between the intervention and usual care groups, adjusting for potential confounding using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 728 enrolled patients, 635 (87.2%) had evaluable data (323 intervention arm; 312 usual care arm). STI testing frequency was higher in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (52.3% vs 42%; aOR 2 [95% CI 1.1, 3.8]). This effect was even more pronounced among the patients who presented asymptomatic for STI (28.6 vs 8.2%; aOR 4.7 [95% CI 1.4-15.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Providing sexual health survey-derived decision support to emergency department clinicians led to increased testing rates for STI in adolescents at high risk for infection, particularly in those presenting asymptomatic for infection. Studies to understand potential barriers to decision support adherence should be undertaken to inform larger, multicenter studies that could determine the generalizability of these findings and whether this process leads to increased STI detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02509572.
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
Authors: Monika K Goyal; Judy A Shea; Katie L Hayes; Gia Badolato; James M Chamberlain; Theoklis Zaoutis; Joel Fein Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Kevon-Mark P Jackman; Sarah Murray; Lisa Hightow-Weidman; Maria E Trent; Andrea L Wirtz; Stefan D Baral; Jacky M Jennings Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Jennifer L Reed; Judith W Dexheimer; Andrea M Kachelmeyer; Maurizio Macaluso; Evaline A Alessandrini; Jessica A Kahn Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2020-04-05 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Kevon-Mark P Jackman; Jeremy Kane; Hadi Kharrazi; Renee M Johnson; Carl Latkin Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 5.428