A comparison between audio computer-assisted self-interviews and clinician interviews for obtaining the sexual history

Center for AIDS and STD, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-7266, USA.
Sex Transm Dis (Impact Factor: 2.75). 01/2005; 31(12):719-26. DOI: 10.1097/01.olq.0000145855.36181.13
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to compare reporting between audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) and clinician-administered sexual histories.
The goal of this study was to explore the usefulness of ACASI in sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics.
The authors conducted a cross-sectional study of ACASI followed by a clinician history (CH) among 609 patients (52% male, 59% white) in an urban, public STD clinic. We assessed completeness of data, item prevalence, and report concordance for sexual history and patient characteristic variables classified as socially neutral (n=5), sensitive (n=11), or rewarded (n=4).
Women more often reported by ACASI than during CH same-sex behavior (19.6% vs. 11.5%), oral sex (67.3% vs. 50.0%), transactional sex (20.7% vs. 9.8%), and amphetamine use (4.9% vs. 0.7%) but were less likely to report STD symptoms (55.4% vs. 63.7%; all McNemar chi-squared P values <0.003). Men's reporting was similar between interviews, except for ever having had sex with another man (36.9% ACASI vs. 28.7% CH, P <0.001). Reporting agreement as measured by kappas and intraclass correlation coefficients was only moderate for socially sensitive and rewarded variables but was substantial or almost perfect for socially neutral variables. ACASI data tended to be more complete. ACASI was acceptable to 89% of participants.
ACASI sexual histories may help to identify persons at risk for STDs.

  • Source
    • "A clinician-administered questionnaire may help solve potential problems such as difficulty understanding the questions, interference with cognitive symptoms, and the discrimination of medication-related changes in sexual performance and sexual problems that are not medication related. On the other hand, some authors have suggested that sensitive information, such as on sexual functioning, is more easily reported in self-report questionnaires (Keller et al., 2006; Kurth et al., 2004). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sexual dysfunction is a frequent side effect of antipsychotics, but information is scant regarding the psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of currently existing questionnaires. This systematic review compares the psychometric properties and content of questionnaires for assessment of sexual functioning in patients using antipsychotics. A systematic literature search was performed using three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO) with predefined search terms. We identified six validated instruments for assessment of sexual functioning in patients using antipsychotics: the Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side Effects Rating Scale (ANNSERS), the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX), the Antipsychotics and Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (ASFQ), the Changes in Sexual Function Questionnaire-14 (CSFQ-14), the Nagoya Sexual Function Questionnaire (NSFQ), and the Psychotropic-Related Sexual Dysfunction Questionnaire (PRSexDQ). The ASFQ, CSFQ-14, and PRSexDQ cover all stages of sexual functioning, which makes these questionnaires preferable to the other three questionnaires described. The ASFQ and PRSexDQ are clinician-administered and ask for a change in sexual functioning related to medication. The ASFQ assesses improvement as well as deterioration of sexual functioning, and includes items about hyperprolactinemia. The CSFQ-14 is useful when self-report is desired but contains more items.
    The Journal of Sex Research 04/2014; 51(4):383-9. DOI:10.1080/00224499.2013.865111 · 2.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The touch-screen ACASI was an additional advantage (Westman, Hampel, & Bradley, 2000). Kurth et al. (2004) reported that 82% of participants said ACASI allowed more honest reporting (compared to 7% for FFI, and 9% who perceived that both interview formats were equally conducive to honesty). ACASI has the additional advantage of reducing missing data because it requires participants to answer each item before they can proceed (Hallforsa , Khatapoushb, Kadushinb, Watsonb, & Saxeb, 2000). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Research with injecting drug users (IDUs) suggests greater willingness to report sensitive and stigmatised behaviour via audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) methods than during face-to-face interviews (FFIs); however, previous studies were limited in verifying this within the same individuals at the same time point. This study examines the relative willingness of IDUs to report sensitive information via ACASI and during a face-to-face clinical assessment administered in health services for IDUs. During recruitment for a randomised controlled trial undertaken at two IDU-targeted health services, assessments were undertaken as per clinical protocols, followed by referral of eligible clients to the trial, in which baseline self-report data were collected via ACASI. Five questions about sensitive injecting and sexual risk behaviours were administered to participants during both clinical interviews and baseline research data collection. "Percentage agreement" determined the magnitude of concordance/discordance in responses across interview methods, while tests appropriate to data format assessed the statistical significance of this variation. Results for all five variables suggest that, relative to ACASI, FFI elicited responses that may be perceived as more socially desirable. Discordance was statistically significant for four of the five variables examined. Participants who reported a history of sex work were more likely to provide discordant responses to at least one socially sensitive item. In health services for IDUs, information collection via ACASI may elicit more reliable and valid responses than FFI. Adoption of a universal precautionary approach to complement individually tailored assessment of and advice regarding health risk behaviours for IDUs may address this issue.
    AIDS Care 03/2012; 24(12). DOI:10.1080/09540121.2012.663886 · 1.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Audio computer-assisted self-interviews (ACASI) are increasingly being used in behavioral health research, most frequently for measuring sexual risks and illegal drug use. Advantages of ACASI include improved reporting of sensitive behaviors (Bernabe-Ortiz et al., 2008; Ghanem, Hutton, Zenilman, Zimba, & Erbelding, 2005; Hewett et al., 2008; Le, Blum, Magnani, Hewett, & Do, 2006; Metzger et al., 2000; Schroder, Carey, & Vanable, 2003; Simoes, Bastos, Moreira, Lynch, & Metzger, 2006; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner et al., 1998; van Griensven et al., 2006), fewer missing data (Jaspan et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2001; Kurth et al., 2004), and enhanced participant experience (Edwards et al., 2007; Kurth et al., 2004; Metzger et al., 2000). However, evidence is limited and inconsistent on the extent to which improvements in data quality can result from using ACASI in populations in low-income countries or with limited experience using computers (Jennings, Lucenko, Malow, & Devieux, 2002; Mensch, Hewett, & Erulkar, 2003; Mensch, Hewett, Gregory, & Helleringer, 2008; Newman et al., 2002; NIMH Multisite HIV/STD Prevention Group, 2008) and specifically for measurement of domestic violence (Kim, Dubowitz, Hudson- Martin, & Lane, 2008; MacMillan et al., 2006; Rhodes et al., 2006; Rhodes, Lauderdale, He, Howes, & Levinson, 2002). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Audio computer-assisted self-interviews (ACASI) are increasingly used in health research to improve the accuracy of data on sensitive behaviors. However, evidence is limited on its use among low-income populations in countries like India and for measurement of sensitive issues such as domestic violence. We compared reports of domestic violence and three less sensitive behaviors related to household decision making and spousal communication in ACASI and face-to-face interviews (FTFI) among 464 young married women enrolled in a longitudinal study of gender-based power and adverse health outcomes in low-income communities in Bangalore, India. We used a test-retest design. At the 12-month study visit, we elicited responses from each participant through FTFI first, followed by ACASI. At the 24-month visit, we reversed the order, implementing ACASI first, followed by FTFI. Univariable log-linear regression models and kappa statistics were used to examine ACASI's effects on self-reports. Regression results showed significantly lower reporting in ACASI relative to FTFI at both visits, including for domestic violence (12-month risk ratio [RR] = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.52, 0.73; 24-month RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.62, 0.89). Response agreement between interview modes, calculated by kappa scores, was universally low, though highest for domestic violence (12-month κ = 0.45; 24-month κ = 0.48). Older age and greater educational attainment appeared associated with higher response agreement. Greater reporting in FTFI may be due to social desirability bias for the less sensitive questions and perceptions of therapeutic benefit for domestic violence. These results cast doubt on the appropriateness of using ACASI for measurement of sensitive behaviors in India.
    Journal of Interpersonal Violence 06/2011; 26(12):2437-56. DOI:10.1177/0886260510385125 · 1.64 Impact Factor
Show more