Mary A Ott1, Julianne Campbell2, Teresa M Imburgia2, Ziyi Yang3, Wanzhu Tu3, Colette L Auerswald4. 1. Section of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: maott@iupui.edu. 2. Section of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 4. School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Middle adolescent males are a difficult group to recruit for community sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention research. We describe a process of community engagement, and venue-based sampling of 14-17-year-old adolescent males, and compare rates of STIs and STI risk behaviors by venue. METHODS: Community engagement consisted of (1) informational meetings with organizations; (2) participation in community meetings and events; (3) hiring community members as study personnel; and (4) an adolescent advisory board recruited from the community. Venues were identified and assessed at different times of the day and days of the week using a structured tool. At selected venues, males ages 14-17 years were invited to participate in a brief survey and provide a urine sample and an optional anal swab for DNA-based STI testing. RESULTS: Venues were assessed (n = 249), and 31 were selected for recruitment, including parks, apartment complexes, community events, entertainment venues, a community school, and community programs for LGBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) and adjudicated youth. We enrolled 667 participants, average age 15.7 years. Participants reported high rates of sexual and STI risk behaviors, but had low rates of STIs. These rates differed by venue, with more structured venues recruiting youth reporting fewer STI risk behaviors and less structured venues within the highest STI prevalence zip code recruiting youth reporting more STI risk behaviors. CONCLUSION: Venue-based sampling is a feasible mechanism to target recruitment and enrollment adolescent males with high STI risk behaviors in community settings, with risk profiles varying by setting.
OBJECTIVES: Middle adolescent males are a difficult group to recruit for community sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention research. We describe a process of community engagement, and venue-based sampling of 14-17-year-old adolescent males, and compare rates of STIs and STI risk behaviors by venue. METHODS: Community engagement consisted of (1) informational meetings with organizations; (2) participation in community meetings and events; (3) hiring community members as study personnel; and (4) an adolescent advisory board recruited from the community. Venues were identified and assessed at different times of the day and days of the week using a structured tool. At selected venues, males ages 14-17 years were invited to participate in a brief survey and provide a urine sample and an optional anal swab for DNA-based STI testing. RESULTS: Venues were assessed (n = 249), and 31 were selected for recruitment, including parks, apartment complexes, community events, entertainment venues, a community school, and community programs for LGBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) and adjudicated youth. We enrolled 667 participants, average age 15.7 years. Participants reported high rates of sexual and STI risk behaviors, but had low rates of STIs. These rates differed by venue, with more structured venues recruiting youth reporting fewer STI risk behaviors and less structured venues within the highest STI prevalence zip code recruiting youth reporting more STI risk behaviors. CONCLUSION: Venue-based sampling is a feasible mechanism to target recruitment and enrollment adolescent males with high STI risk behaviors in community settings, with risk profiles varying by setting.
Authors: Eileen V Pitpitan; Seth C Kalichman; Lisa A Eaton; Steffanie A Strathdee; Thomas L Patterson Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Michele R Decker; Beth Dail Marshall; Mark Emerson; Amanda Kalamar; Laura Covarrubias; Nan Astone; Ziliang Wang; Ersheng Gao; Lawrence Mashimbye; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Rajib Acharya; Adesola Olumide; Oladosu Ojengbede; Robert W Blum; Freya L Sonenstein Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Richard H Kahn; Debra J Mosure; Susan Blank; Charlotte K Kent; Joan M Chow; Melina R Boudov; Jeffrey Brock; Scott Tulloch Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Erin Gregory Romero; Linda A Teplin; Gary M McClelland; Karen M Abram; Leah J Welty; Jason J Washburn Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Katherine M Keyes; Caroline Rutherford; Ava Hamilton; Joshua A Barocas; Kitty H Gelberg; Peter P Mueller; Daniel J Feaster; Nabila El-Bassel; Magdalena Cerdá Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Rep Date: 2022-04-08
Authors: Margaret Kweku; Hubert Amu; Adam Awolu; Martin Adjuik; Martin Amogre Ayanore; Emmanuel Manu; Elvis Enowbeyang Tarkang; Joyce Komesuor; Geoffrey Adebayo Asalu; Fortress Yayra Aku; Nuworza Kugbey; Fidelis Anumu; Laud Ampomah Boateng; Justine Sefakor Alornyo; Roland Glover; Timothy Letsa; Ayaga A Bawah; Nicholas S Kanlisi; John Koku Awoonor-Williams; James F Phillips; John Owusu Gyapong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jayelin N Parker; Alexis S Hunter; Jose A Bauermeister; Erin E Bonar; Adam Carrico; Rob Stephenson Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2021-12-01