A randomized trial of home versus clinic-based sexually transmitted disease screening among men

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Volumn 39, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 842-847

  Reagan, Mary M ^a   Xu, Hanna ^a   Shih, Shirley L ^a   Secura, Gina M ^a   Peipert, Jeffrey F ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CHLAMYDIASIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ETHNICITY; GONORRHEA; HOME DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HOSPITAL SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEN'S HEALTH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; URINALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GONORRHEA; HOME CARE SERVICES; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEN'S HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; NEISSERIA GONORRHOEAE; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REAGENT KITS, DIAGNOSTIC; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84867742594     PISSN: 01485717     EISSN: 15374521     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3182649165     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Chlamydial Infection: Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 128-133. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2007.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sex Transm Dis Surveillance, 2010. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Nov. 2011.
3. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Gonorrhea: Recommendation Statement. AHRW Publication No. 05Y 0579-A. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2005.
4. Blake DR, Quinn TC, Gaydos CA. Should asymptomatic men beincluded in Chlamydia screening programs? Cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia screening among male and female entrants to a national job training program. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:S45YS50.
5. Fine D, Dicker L, Mosure D, et al. Increasing chlamydia posi-tivity in women screenedinfamily planningclinics:Dowe know why?SexTransm Dis 2008; 35:47-52. (Pubitemid 351619352)
6. Brunham RC, Pourbohloul B, Mak S, et al. The unexpected impact of a Chlamydia trachomatis infection control program on suscepti-bility to reinfection. J Infect Dis 2005; 192:1836-1844. (Pubitemid 41587838)
7. Jones C. Urine screening for gonococcal and chlamydia infections at community-based organization in a high-morbidity area. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27:146-151. (Pubitemid 30129992)
8. Aral SO, Wasserheit JN. Social and behavioral correlates of pelvic inflammatory disease. Sex Transm Dis 1998; 25:378-385. (Pubitemid 28368951)
9. Gunn RA, Poschun BS, Fitzgerald S, et al. Screening high-risk adolescent males for Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Sex Tranm Dis. 1998; 25:49-52.
10. Gift TL, Blake DR, Gaydos CA, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis: A review of the lit-erature. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:S51YS60.
11. Gift TL, Gaydos CA, Kent CK, et al. The program cost and cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease in women. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:S66YS75.
12. Marrazzo JM, Scholes D. Acceptability of urine-based screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic young men: A systematic review. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:S28YS33.
13. Scholes D, Heidrich FE, Yarbro P, et al. Population-based out-reach for Chlamydia screening inmen: Results from a randomized trial. Sex Transm Dis 2007; 34:837-839. (Pubitemid 350287495)
14. Gaydos CA, Ferrero DV, Papp J. Laboratory aspects of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis in the new millennium. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:S45YS50.
15. Stephenson J, Carder C, Copas A, et al. Home screening for chlamydial genital infection: IsIt Acceptable to Young Men and Women? Sex Transm Infect 2000; 76:25-27. (Pubitemid 30320991)
16. Andersen B, Østergaara L, Møller JK, et al. Effectiveness of a mass media campaign torecruit young adults for testing of Chlamydia trachomatis. Sex Transm Infect 2001; 77:416-418. (Pubitemid 33086923)
17. Domeika M, Oscarsson L, HalleôÇn A, et al. Mailed urine samples are not an effective screening approach for Chlamydia trachomatis case finding among young men. JEADV 2007; 21:789-794. (Pubitemid 46939052)
18. Rogstad KE, Bates SM, Partridge S, et al. The prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection inmale undergraduates: A postal survey. Sex Transm Infect 2001; 77:111-113. (Pubitemid 32324482)
19. van Bergen J, Gotz HM, Richardus JH, et al. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanization and suggests targeted screening approaches: Results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:17-23. (Pubitemid 40222861)
20. Gotz HM, Veldhuijzen ID, van Bergen JE, et al. Acceptability and consequences of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis by home-based urine testing. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:557-562. (Pubitemid 41318842)
21. Chai SJ, Aumakhan B, Barnes M, et al. Internet-based screening for sexually transmitted infections to reach nonclinic populations in the community: Risk factors for infection inmen. Sex Transm Dis 2010; 37:756-763.