|
Improving Chlamydia trachomatis retesting rates by mailed self-collection kit
Monika
Buhrer-Skinner A B D,
Reinhold
Muller A,
Petra G.
Buettner A,
Rose
Gordon B and
Joseph
Debattista C
A
Anton Breinl Centre for Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia.
B
Townsville Sexual Health Service, Institute of Primary Health and Ambulatory Care, Queensland Health, North Ward Health Campus, PO Box 5224, Townsville, Qld 4810, Australia.
C
Sexual Health and AIDS Service, North Side Health Service District, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Qld 4000, Australia.
D
Corresponding author. Email: Monika.BuhrerSkinner@jcu.edu.au
Sexual Health
8(2)
248-250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SH10064
Submitted: 3 June 2010 Accepted: 14 October 2010 Published:
18
May
2011
|  |
|
|
Abstract
Background:
To assess a mailed self-collection kit for chlamydia testing as an intervention to increase post-treatment retesting rates. Methods: This prospective intervention study took place at a sexual health clinic in Townsville, North Queensland (Australia) between 2006 and 2008. The intervention consisted of offering to mail a self-collection kit for retesting 3 months after treatment. The achieved retesting rates were compared to those from the previous year and to concurrent controls who did not participate in the intervention. Both control groups received standard advice on retesting. Results: Of the 46 participants in the intervention group, 34.8% returned the sample for retesting 3 to 4 months after initial treatment, in comparison to 6.8% of the historic control groups (n = 206) and 1.4% of the concurrent control group (n = 142) (P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Retesting rates for Chlamydia trachomatis were substantially and significantly improved using the mailed self-collection kit evidencing that the kit could deliver a much needed intervention to improve notoriously low retesting rates.
Additional keywords:
Australia, non-clinic based testing, postal kit.
|
References
[1]
Hosenfeld CB, Workowski KA, Berman S, Zaidi A, Dyson J, Mosure D,
et al
Repeat infection with Chlamydia and gonorrhea among females: a systematic review of the literature.
Sex Transm Dis 2009
; 36: 478–89.
|
CrossRef |
PubMed |
[2]
Fung M, Scott KC, Kent CK, Klausner JD.
Chlamydial and gonococcal reinfection among men: a systematic review of data to evaluate the need for retesting.
Sex Transm Infect 2007
; 83: 304–9.
|
CrossRef |
PubMed |
[3]
Haggerty CL, Gottlieb SL, Taylor BD, Low N, Xu F, Ness RB.
Risk of sequelae after
Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection in women.
J Infect Dis 2010
; 201: 134–55.
|
CrossRef |
[4]
Malotte CK, Ledsky R, Hogben M, Larro M, Middlestadt S, St Lawrence JS,
et al
Comparison of methods to increase repeat testing in persons treated for gonorrhea and/or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics.
Sex Transm Dis 2004
; 31: 637–42.
|
CrossRef |
PubMed |
[5]
Bialasiewicz S, Whiley DM, Buhrer-Skinner M, Bautista C, Barker K, Aitken S,
et al
A novel gel-based method for self-collection and ambient temperature postal transport of urine for PCR detection of
Chlamydia trachomatis.
Sex Transm Infect 2009
; 85: 102–5.
|
CrossRef |
CAS |
PubMed |
[6]
Buhrer-Skinner M, Muller R, Bialasiewicz S, Sloots TP, Debattista J, Gordon R,
et al
The check is in the mail: piloting a novel approach to
Chlamydia trachomatis testing using self-collected, mailed specimen.
Sex Health 2009
; 6: 163–9.
|
CrossRef |
PubMed |
[7]
Bloomfield PJ, Steiner KC, Kent CK, Klausner JD.
Repeat chlamydia screening by mail, San Francisco.
Sex Transm Infect 2003
; 79: 28–30.
|
CrossRef |
CAS |
PubMed |
e-Alerts
Connect with us
