Retesting for genital Chlamydia trachomatis among visitors of a sexually transmitted infections clinic: randomized intervention trial of home- versus clinic-based recall

被引:21
|
作者
Gotz, Hannelore M. [1 ,4 ]
Wolfers, Mireille E. G. [1 ,4 ]
Luijendijk, Ad [2 ]
van den Broek, Ingrid V. F. [3 ]
机构
[1] Rotterdam Rijnmond Publ Hlth Serv, Dept Infect Dis Control, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Erasmus MC, Dept Med Microbiol & Infect Dis, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Natl Inst Publ Hlth & Environm, Ctr Infect Dis Control, Epidemiol & Surveillance Unit, NL-3720 BA Bilthoven, Netherlands
[4] Univ Med Ctr, Erasmus MC, Dept Publ Hlth, Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Chlamydia trachomatis; Screening; Repeated infection; Retest rate; Chlamydia positivity; Intervention retesting; Home-based testing versus clinic testing; REINFECTION RATES; SMS REMINDERS; GONORRHEA; WOMEN; MEN;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2334-13-239
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Background: Reinfections of Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) are common. In a two-armed intervention study at an urban STI clinic in the Netherlands, heterosexual Ct-positive visitors received an invitation for retesting after 4-5 months. Interventions were either home-based sampling by mailed test-kit, or clinic-based testing without appointment. Methods: Data collection included socio-demographic and sexual behavioural variables at first (T0) and repeat test (T1). Participation in retesting, prevalence and determinants of repeat infection among study participants are described and compared with findings from non-participants. Results: Of the 216 visitors enrolled in the study, 75 accepted retesting (35%). The retest participation was 46% (50/109) in the home group versus 23% (25/107) in the clinic group (p = 0.001). Men were less often retested than women (15% versus 43%, p < 0.001). The overall chlamydia positivity rate at retest was 17.3% (13/75) compared to 12.4% seen at all visits at the STI clinic in 2011. Repeated infections were more frequent among non-Dutch than Dutch participants (27.0% versus 7.9%; p = 0.04) and in persons reporting symptoms (31.0% versus 7.0%; p = 0.01). Both untreated infections of current partners as well as unprotected sex with new partners contribute to repeated infections. Conclusion: The high rate of repeated infections indicates the need for interventions to increase retesting; improvement of partner-management and risk reduction counselling remain necessary. Home-based testing was more effective than clinic-based testing. However other strategies, including self-triage of patients, may also increase repeat testing rates and personal preferences should be taken into account.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Retesting for genital Chlamydia trachomatis among visitors of a sexually transmitted infections clinic: randomized intervention trial of home- versus clinic-based recall
    Hannelore M Götz
    Mireille EG Wolfers
    Ad Luijendijk
    Ingrid VF van den Broek
    [J]. BMC Infectious Diseases, 13
  • [2] A Randomized Trial of Home Versus Clinic-Based Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Among Men
    Reagan, Mary M.
    Xu, Hanna
    Shih, Shirley L.
    Secura, Gina M.
    Peipert, Jeffrey F.
    [J]. SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, 2012, 39 (11) : 842 - 847
  • [3] Home Compared With Clinic-Based Screening for Sexually Transmitted Infections A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Graseck, Anna S.
    Secura, Gina M.
    Allsworth, Jenifer E.
    Madden, Tessa
    Peipert, Jeffrey F.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 116 (06): : 1311 - 1318
  • [4] Home Screening Compared With Clinic-Based Screening for Sexually Transmitted Infections
    Graseck, Anna S.
    Secura, Gina M.
    Allsworth, Jenifer E.
    Madden, Tessa
    Peipert, Jeffrey F.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 115 (04): : 745 - 752
  • [5] Conventional versus molecular detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae among males in a sexually transmitted infections clinic
    Situ, Siti Fazilah
    Ding, Chuan Hun
    Nawi, Salbiah
    Johar, Asmah
    Ramli, Ramliza
    [J]. MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 2017, 39 (01) : 25 - 31
  • [6] Home versus clinic-based specimen collection for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae
    Graseck, Anna S.
    Shih, Shirley L.
    Peipert, Jeffrey F.
    [J]. EXPERT REVIEW OF ANTI-INFECTIVE THERAPY, 2011, 9 (02) : 183 - 194
  • [7] Home-based versus clinic-based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections
    Fajardo-Bernal, Luisa
    Aponte-Gonzalez, Johanna
    Vigil, Patrick
    Angel-Mueller, Edith
    Rincon, Carlos
    Gaitan, Hernando G.
    Low, Nicola
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2015, (09):
  • [8] Genital and extra-genital Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections in young women attending a Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) clinic
    Foschi, Claudio
    Zagarrigo, Manuel
    Belletti, Matteo
    Marangoni, Antonella
    Re, Maria Carla
    Gaspari, Valeria
    [J]. NEW MICROBIOLOGICA, 2020, 43 (03): : 115 - 120
  • [9] Home- versus clinic-based exercise intervention in patients with heart failure (EXIT-HF trial): a pragmatic randomized controlled trial
    Santos, M.
    Schimdt, C.
    Magalhaes, S.
    Teixeira, M.
    Oliveira, M. I.
    Ferreira, J. P.
    Ribeiro, F.
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2023, 44
  • [10] RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF HOME VS. CLINIC-BASED SCREENING FOR SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS IN LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTIVE USERS
    Graseck, A.
    Secura, G.
    Allsworth, J.
    Madden, T.
    Peipert, J.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2010, 82 (02) : 187 - 187