Article

A randomised controlled trial of computer-assisted interviewing in sexual health clinics

Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Sexually transmitted infections (Impact Factor: 3.08). 08/2010; 86(4):310-4. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2010.043422
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the impact of computer-assisted interview compared with pen and paper on disclosure of sexual behaviour, diagnostic testing by clinicians, infections diagnosed and referral for counselling.
Two-centre parallel three-arm randomised controlled open trial. Computer-generated randomisation with allocation concealment using sealed envelopes.
Two London teaching hospital sexual health clinics.
2351 clinic attenders over the age of 16 years.
Computer-assisted self-interview (CASI). Computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI). Pen and paper interview (PAPI).
Diagnostic tests ordered, sexually transmitted infections (STI).
Disclosure of sexual risk, referral for counselling.
801, 763 and 787 patients randomly allocated to receive CASI, CAPI and PAPI. 795, 744 and 779 were available for intention-to-treat analysis. Significantly more diagnostic testing for hepatitis B and C and rectal samples in the CAPI arm (odds for more testing relative to PAPI 1.32; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.59). This pattern was not seen among CASI patients. HIV testing was significantly lower among CASI patients (odds for less testing relative to PAPI 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90). STI diagnoses were not significantly different by trial arm. A summary measure of seven prespecified sensitive behaviours found greater reporting with CASI (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.6) and CAPI (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.7) compared with PAPI.
CASI and CAPI can generate greater recording of risky behaviour than traditional PAPI. Increased disclosure did not increase STI diagnoses. Safeguards may be needed to ensure that clinicians are prompted to act upon disclosures made during self-interview.

1 Follower
 · 
138 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Increased testing frequency is a key strategy in syphilis control, but achieving regular testing is difficult. The objective of this study is to describe a sexually transmissible infection (STI) testing outreach program (the Testing Tent) at a gay community event. Methods: Gay men attending the testing tent in 2010-11 completed a computer-assisted self-interview and were screened for STIs. Clinical, demographic, behavioural and diagnostic data were compared with gay men attending a clinic-based service during 2009. The Testing Tent was marketed on social media sites and data were extracted on the number of times the advertisements were viewed. Staffing, laboratory, marketing and venue hire expenses were calculated to estimate the cost of delivering the service. Results: Ninety-eight men attended the Testing Tent. They were older (median age: 42 years v. 30 years; P < 0.001), had more sex partners (median: five in 3 months v. two; P < 0.001) and more likely to inject drugs (9% v. 4%; P = 0.034) than the 1006 clinic attendees, but were more likely to have previously tested for STIs (81% v. 69%; P = 0.028) and to always use condoms for anal sex (59% v. 43%; P = 0.005). Five cases of STIs were detected; the diagnostic yield was not significantly different from that of the clinic. The cost of the Testing Tent was A$28 440. Conclusion: Nonclinical testing facilities are an acceptable option and are accessed by gay men requiring regular testing, and may be an important addition to traditional testing environments.
    Sexual Health 06/2013; 10(4). DOI:10.1071/SH13012 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Partner notification (PN) is the process whereby sexual partners of an index patient are informed of their exposure to a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and the need to obtain treatment. For the person (index patient) with a curable STI, PN aims to eradicate infection and prevent re-infection. For sexual partners, PN aims to identify and treat undiagnosed STIs. At the level of sexual networks and populations, the aim of PN is to interrupt chains of STI transmission. For people with viral STI, PN aims to identify undiagnosed infections, which can facilitate access for their sexual partners to treatment and help prevent transmission. To assess the effects of different PN strategies in people with STI, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. We searched electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE) without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists of potential studies and previous reviews and contacted experts in the field. We searched three trial registries. We conducted the most recent search on 31 August 2012. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing two or more PN strategies. Four main PN strategies were included: patient referral, expedited partner therapy, provider referral and contract referral. Patient referral means that the patient notifies their sexual partners, either with (enhanced patient referral) or without (simple patient referral) additional verbal or written support. In expedited partner therapy, the patient delivers medication or a prescription for medication to their partner(s) without the need for a medical examination of the partner. In provider referral, health service personnel notify the partners. In contract referral, the index patient is encouraged to notify partner, with the understanding that the partners will be contacted if they do not visit the health service by a certain date. We analysed data according to paired partner referral strategies. We organised the comparisons first according to four main PN strategies (1. enhanced patient referral, 2. expedited partner therapy, 3. contract referral, 4. provider referral). We compared each main strategy with simple patient referral and then with each other, if trials were available. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For dichotomous variables, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate. We performed a sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome re-infection rate of the index patient by excluding studies with attrition of greater than 20%. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We included 26 trials (17,578 participants, 9015 women and 8563 men). Five trials were conducted in developing countries. Only two trials were conducted among HIV-positive patients. There was potential for selection bias, owing to the methods of allocation used and of performance bias, owing to the lack of blinding in most included studies. Seven trials had attrition of greater than 20%, increasing the risk of bias.The review found moderate-quality evidence that expedited partner therapy is better than simple patient referral for preventing re-infection of index patients when combining trials of STIs that caused urethritis or cervicitis (6 trials; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, I(2) = 39%). When studies with attrition greater than 20% were excluded, the effect of expedited partner therapy was attenuated (2 trials; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.04, I(2) = 0%). In trials restricted to index patients with chlamydia, the effect was attenuated (2 trials; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35, I(2) = 22%). Expedited partner therapy also increased the number of partners treated per index patient (three trials) when compared with simple patient referral in people with chlamydia or gonorrhoea (MD 0.43, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.58) or trichomonas (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.67), and people with any STI syndrome (MD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.67). Expedited partner therapy was not superior to enhanced patient referral in preventing re-infection (3 trials; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.53, I(2) = 33%, low-quality evidence). Home sampling kits for partners (four trials) did not result in lower rates of re-infection in the index case (measured in one trial), or higher numbers of partners elicited (three trials), notified (two trials) or treated (one trial) when compared with simple patient referral. There was no consistent evidence for the relative effects of provider, contract or other patient referral methods. In one trial among men with non-gonococcal urethritis, more partners were treated with provider referral than with simple patient referral (MD 0.5, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63). In one study among people with syphilis, contract referral elicited treatment of more partners than provider referral (MD 2.2, 95% CI 1.95 to 2.45), but the number of partners receiving treatment was the same in both groups. Where measured, there was no statistical evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse effects between PN strategies. The evidence assessed in this review does not identify a single optimal strategy for PN for any particular STI. When combining trials of STI causing urethritis or cervicitis, expedited partner therapy was more successful than simple patient referral for preventing re-infection of the index patient but was not superior to enhanced patient referral. Expedited partner therapy interventions should include all components that were part of the trial intervention package. There was insufficient evidence to determine the most effective components of an enhanced patient referral strategy. There are too few trials to allow consistent conclusions about the relative effects of provider, contract or other patient referral methods for different STIs. More high-quality RCTs of PN strategies for HIV and syphilis, using biological outcomes, are needed.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 10/2013; 10(10):CD002843. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD002843.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • International Journal of STD & AIDS 11/2013; DOI:10.1177/0956462413512807 · 1.04 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
59 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014