Wiley D Jenkins1, Leslie D Williams2, William S Pearson3. 1. From the Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Population Science and Policy, SIU School of Medicine, Springfield. 2. Community Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health, Chicago, IL. 3. Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although rural areas contain approximately 19% of the US population, little research has explored sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk and how urban-developed interventions may be suitable in more population-thin areas. Although STI rates vary across rural areas, these areas share diminishing access to screening and limited rural-specific testing of STI interventions. METHODS: This narrative review uses a political ecology model of health and explores 4 domains influencing STI risk and screening: epidemiology, health services, political and economic, and social. Articles describing aspects of rural STI epidemiology, screening access and use, and intervention utility within these domains were found by a search of PubMed. RESULTS: Epidemiology contributes to risk via multiple means, such as the presence of increased-risk populations and the at-times disproportionate impact of the opioid/drug use epidemic. Rural health services are diminishing in quantity, often have lesser accessibility, and may be stigmatizing to those needing services. Local political and economic influences include funding decisions, variable enforcement of laws/statutes, and systemic prevention of harm reduction services. Social norms such as stigma and discrimination can prevent individuals from seeking appropriate care, and also lessen individual self-efficacy to reduce personal risk. CONCLUSIONS: Sexually transmitted infection in rural areas is significant in scope and facing diminished prevention opportunities and resources. Although many STI interventions have been developed and piloted, few have been tested to scale or operationalized in rural areas. By considering rural STI risk reduction within a holistic model, purposeful exploration of interventions tailored to rural environments may be explored.
BACKGROUND: Although rural areas contain approximately 19% of the US population, little research has explored sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk and how urban-developed interventions may be suitable in more population-thin areas. Although STI rates vary across rural areas, these areas share diminishing access to screening and limited rural-specific testing of STI interventions. METHODS: This narrative review uses a political ecology model of health and explores 4 domains influencing STI risk and screening: epidemiology, health services, political and economic, and social. Articles describing aspects of rural STI epidemiology, screening access and use, and intervention utility within these domains were found by a search of PubMed. RESULTS: Epidemiology contributes to risk via multiple means, such as the presence of increased-risk populations and the at-times disproportionate impact of the opioid/drug use epidemic. Rural health services are diminishing in quantity, often have lesser accessibility, and may be stigmatizing to those needing services. Local political and economic influences include funding decisions, variable enforcement of laws/statutes, and systemic prevention of harm reduction services. Social norms such as stigma and discrimination can prevent individuals from seeking appropriate care, and also lessen individual self-efficacy to reduce personal risk. CONCLUSIONS: Sexually transmitted infection in rural areas is significant in scope and facing diminished prevention opportunities and resources. Although many STI interventions have been developed and piloted, few have been tested to scale or operationalized in rural areas. By considering rural STI risk reduction within a holistic model, purposeful exploration of interventions tailored to rural environments may be explored.
Authors: Michael W Traeger; Sophia E Schroeder; Edwina J Wright; Margaret E Hellard; Vincent J Cornelisse; Joseph S Doyle; Mark A Stoové Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Carole Lunny; Darlene Taylor; Linda Hoang; Tom Wong; Mark Gilbert; Richard Lester; Mel Krajden; Gina Ogilvie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah E Kidd; Jeremy A Grey; Elizabeth A Torrone; Hillard S Weinstock Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 17.586