Article

"Testing-only" visits: an assessment of missed diagnoses in clients attending sexually transmitted disease clinics.

‡Section of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA
Sexually transmitted diseases (Impact Factor: 2.58). 01/2013; 40(1):64-9. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31826f32f3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT At sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, advances in testing technology coupled with increasing demands and diminishing resources have promoted the use of testing-only visits (clinic visits with testing for STDs but no full examination) to meet increasing demands for STD services.
The aims of the present study were to estimate the prevalence of STD diagnoses that could become "missed diagnoses" if patients would use testing-only visits and to examine patient characteristics associated with these potential missed diagnoses.
We conducted a self-administered survey of STD-related symptoms and sexual risk behaviors in patients seeking routine clinical care at 3 STD clinics. Medical charts were abstracted to estimate the prevalence of viral STDs, trichomoniasis, and other diagnoses from standard clinical services that could become missed diagnoses.
Of 2582 patients included, the median age was 24 years and 50% were women. In women, overall, 3.2% were diagnosed as having a viral STD; 9.6%, trichomoniasis; and 41.0%, vulvovaginal candidiasis or symptomatic bacterial vaginosis. The prevalence of these potential missed diagnoses varied by patient characteristics, but in women who reported no symptoms, the prevalence of trichomoniasis was still 6.3%. In men, 19.3% received a diagnosis of urethritis but tested negative for both gonorrhea and chlamydia; this prevalence varied from 15.7% in those who reported no symptoms to 32.6% in those who reported malodor.
A high proportion of STD clients received diagnoses from standard care visits that would be missed by testing-only visits. When patients, even those asymptomatic, use testing-only visits, missed diagnoses of STDs or related genital tract conditions can be substantial. The potential disadvantages of testing-only visits should be weighed against the advantages of such visits.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
84 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate the prevalence of HIV and syphilis, incidence of syphilis and to identify the correlates of syphilis infection among heterosexual male attendees of sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics (MSC). A cohort study of one-year duration was conducted in Yangzhou and Changzhou cities in Jiangsu province of China. The baseline survey commenced in June 2009, recruited 1225 consenting adult MSCs (609 in Yangzhou and 617 in Changzhou) through STI-clinic based convenience sampling. Baseline HIV and syphilis prevalence were 0.49% and 17.29% respectively. Syphilis incidence rate was 7.22 per 100 person-years (6.53 in Yangzhou and 7.76 in Changzhou) during the 6-month follow-up with retention fractions of 27.38% and 35.15% for Yangzhou and Changzhou respectively. Majority of the participants were middle-aged, high school educated, married, living with partners and non-migrants. Very few subjects reported recent and consistent condom-use with regular partners. Although considerable number of MSCs reported recent sexual exposure with female sex workers (FSW) and non-FSW casual partners, the proportion of reported condom use was very low during those exposures. In multivariate analyses higher age, having recent sex with FSWs and being HIV-positive were associated with higher syphilis sero-positivity while higher education was protective. In bivariate analyses, being married, divorced/widowed, official residency of the study cities and non-use of condom with regular partners predicted higher risk. Considering the potential bridging role of MSCs between high and low-risk populations, effective intervention strategies among them targeting the correlates of syphilis infection are urgently called for in Jiangsu province of China.
    PLoS ONE 04/2014; 9(4):e95289. · 3.53 Impact Factor