Jennifer L Reed1, Brittany E Punches2, Regina G Taylor3, Maurizio Macaluso4, Evaline A Alessandrini5, Jessica A Kahn6. 1. Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. Electronic address: jennifer.reed@cchmc.org. 2. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 3. Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 5. Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH; James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 6. Division of Adolescent and Transition Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We qualitatively explore adolescent and parent or guardian attitudes about benefits and barriers to universally offered gonorrhea and chlamydia screening and modalities for assessing interest in screening in the pediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: A convenience sample of forty 14- to 21-year-olds and parents or guardians of adolescents presenting to an urban and community pediatric ED with any chief complaint participated in individual, semistructured, confidential interviews. Topics included support of universally offered gonorrhea and chlamydia screening, barriers and benefits to screening, and modalities for assessing interest in screening. Data were analyzed with framework analysis. RESULTS: Almost all adolescents (37/40; 93%) and parents (39/40; 98%) support offering ED gonorrhea or chlamydia screening. Benefits included earlier diagnosis and treatment, convenience and transmission prevention (cited by both groups), and improved education and long-term health (cited by parents/guardians). Barriers included concerns about confidentiality and cost (cited by both groups), embarrassment (cited by adolescents), and nondisclosure to parents or guardians (cited by parents/guardians). Adolescents preferred that the request for gonorrhea or chlamydia screening be presented in a private room, using tablet technology. Both groups noted that the advantages to tablets included confidentiality and adolescents' familiarity with technology. Adolescents noted that tablet use would address concerns about bringing up gonorrhea or chlamydia screening with clinicians, whereas parents or guardians noted that tablets might increase screening incidence but expressed concern about the lack of personal interaction. CONCLUSION: Universally offered gonorrhea and chlamydia screening in a pediatric ED was acceptable to the adolescents and parents or guardians in this study. Offering a tablet-based method to assess interest in screening may increase participation.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We qualitatively explore adolescent and parent or guardian attitudes about benefits and barriers to universally offered gonorrhea and chlamydia screening and modalities for assessing interest in screening in the pediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: A convenience sample of forty 14- to 21-year-olds and parents or guardians of adolescents presenting to an urban and community pediatric ED with any chief complaint participated in individual, semistructured, confidential interviews. Topics included support of universally offered gonorrhea and chlamydia screening, barriers and benefits to screening, and modalities for assessing interest in screening. Data were analyzed with framework analysis. RESULTS: Almost all adolescents (37/40; 93%) and parents (39/40; 98%) support offering ED gonorrhea or chlamydia screening. Benefits included earlier diagnosis and treatment, convenience and transmission prevention (cited by both groups), and improved education and long-term health (cited by parents/guardians). Barriers included concerns about confidentiality and cost (cited by both groups), embarrassment (cited by adolescents), and nondisclosure to parents or guardians (cited by parents/guardians). Adolescents preferred that the request for gonorrhea or chlamydia screening be presented in a private room, using tablet technology. Both groups noted that the advantages to tablets included confidentiality and adolescents' familiarity with technology. Adolescents noted that tablet use would address concerns about bringing up gonorrhea or chlamydia screening with clinicians, whereas parents or guardians noted that tablets might increase screening incidence but expressed concern about the lack of personal interaction. CONCLUSION: Universally offered gonorrhea and chlamydia screening in a pediatric ED was acceptable to the adolescents and parents or guardians in this study. Offering a tablet-based method to assess interest in screening may increase participation.
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; David E Kanouse; Martin Y Iguchi; Ricky N Bluthenthal; Frank H Galvan; Eric G Bing Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Supriya D Mehta; Jonathan Hall; Sheryl B Lyss; Paul R Skolnik; Lisa N Pealer; Sigmund Kharasch Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jennifer L Reed; Jill S Huppert; Gordon L Gillespie; Regina G Taylor; Carolyn K Holland; Evaline A Alessandrini; Jessica A Kahn Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Byron E Batteiger; Wanzhu Tu; Susan Ofner; Barbara Van Der Pol; Diane R Stothard; Donald P Orr; Barry P Katz; J Dennis Fortenberry Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Megan E Pailler; Peter F Cronholm; Frances K Barg; Matthew B Wintersteen; Guy S Diamond; Joel A Fein Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Gordon Lee Gillespie; Jennifer Reed; Carolyn K Holland; Jennifer Knopf Munafo; Rachael Ekstrand; Maria T Britto; Jill Huppert Journal: Adv Emerg Nurs J Date: 2013 Jan-Mar
Authors: Fahd A Ahmad; Donna B Jeffe; Katie Plax; Kenneth B Schechtman; Dwight E Doerhoff; Jane M Garbutt; David M Jaffe Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 2.740
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; 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