et al . et al . et al .
Sexual Health Sexual Health Society
Publishing on sexual health from the widest perspective
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Use of the internet and self-collected samples as a sexually transmissible infection intervention in rural Illinois communities

Wiley D. Jenkins A D , Charlie Rabins B , Mathilda Barnes C , Patricia Agreda C and Charlotte Gaydos C

A Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 913 N Rutledge Street, PO Box 19671, Springfield, IL 62791-9671, USA.

B Illinois Department of Public Health, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Section, 525 W Jefferson Street, Springfield, IL 62672, USA.

C Johns Hopkins University, 530 Rangos Building, 855 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

D Corresponding author. Email: wjenkins@siumed.edu

Sexual Health 8(1) 79-85 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH10012
Submitted: 9 February 2010  Accepted: 30 March 2010   Published: 24 January 2011

Abstract

Background: In the USA, reported cases of chlamydia (Chlamydia trachomatis) continue to rise despite substantial funding for screening. National gonorrhoea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae) rates have remained relatively stable, with clusters associated with metropolitan areas. Rural areas are no exception, as every county in Illinois reported cases of chlamydia in 2007. Morbidity associated with infection remains a public health concern, with costs of $US2.5+ billion annually. Novel screening interventions must be examined for their ability to reach those at risk who are missed by traditional methods. Methods: The website Iwantthekit.org was modified to allow residents from 25 contiguous counties in Central Illinois to request a self-collected sample kit. Returned kits were tested for chlamydia and gonorrhoea. The initial study period was 12 months. Results: During the study period, 343 kits were requested from 20 counties and 39.9% were satisfactorily returned for analysis. Positivity rates for chlamydia and gonorrhoea were 5.8% and 1.2%, respectively, for females and 1.9% and 0% for males. Males comprised 37.7% of all internet samples (compared with 23.4% for traditional screening venues) and 40.4% of all internet samples submitted by whites (compared with only 17.2% of traditional screening). Conclusions: The female positivity rate was comparable to those seen in other screening venues and the method successfully engaged at-risk males. Overall, participation was low and the costs associated with the program outweighed the averted costs associated with the few cases identified. While this methodology resulted in sample requests from a wide area, it must be utilised by more individuals to become cost-effective.

Graphical Abstract Image

Additional keywords: chlamydia, gonorrhoea, testing.


References


[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance, 2002. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2002. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats02/toc2002.htm [verified September 2009].

[2] CDC. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance, 2006. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats06/toc2006.htm [verified September 2009].

[3] Sexually Transmitted Disease Section. Sexually transmitted diseases. Springfield: Illinois Department of Public Health; 2009. Available online at: http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/statshome.htm [verified March 2009].

[4] CDC. Chlamydia. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/STDFact-Chlamydia.htm [verified February 2009].

[5] Mehta SD,  Bishai D,  Howell MR,  Rothman RE,  Quinn TC,  Zenilman JM. Cost-effectiveness of five strategies for gonorrhoeae and chlamydia control among female and male emergency department patients. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29 83–91.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[6] Eng TR , Butler WT , eds. The hidden epidemic: confronting sexually transmitted diseases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2007.

[7] Chesson HW,  Collins D,  Koski K. Formulas for estimating the costs averted by sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention programs in the United States. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2008; 6 10–13.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[8] U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for chlamydial infection: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147 128–33.
PubMed |

[9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chlamydia screening among sexually active young female enrollees of health plans – United States, 2000–2007. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep 2009; 58 362–5.


[10] US Census Bureau. Census 2000 Summary File 1. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce; 2000. Available online at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US17&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-redoLog=false&-format=ST-2&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_GCTT1R_US40S&-CONTEXT=gct [verified January 2010].

[11] Genc M,  Mardh PA. A cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in asymptomatic women. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124 1–7.
CAS | PubMed |

[12] Marrazzo JM,  Celum CL,  Hillis SD,  Fine D,  DeLisle S,  Handsfield HH. Performance and cost-effectiveness of selective screening criteria for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women. Implications for a national chlamydia control strategy. Sex Transm Dis 1997; 24 131–41.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[13] Howell MR,  Gaydos JC,  McKee KT,  Quinn TC,  Gaydo CA. Control of Chlamydia trachomatis infections in female army recruits: cost-effective screening and treatment in training cohorts to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease. Sex Transm Dis 1999; 26 519–26.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[14] Welte R,  Kretzschmar M,  Leidl R,  van den Hoek A,  Jager JC,  Postma MJ. Cost-effectiveness of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based dynamic approach. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27 518–29.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[15] Mehta SD,  Bishai D,  Howell MR,  Rothman RE,  Quinn TC,  Zenilman JM. Cost-effectiveness of five strategies for gonorrhea and chlamydia control among female and male emergency department patients. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29(2): 83–91.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[16] Ginocchio RH,  Veenstra DL,  Connell FA,  Marrazzo JM. The clinical and economic consequences of screening young men for genital chlamydia infection. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30 99–106.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[17] Kraut-Becher JR,  Gift TL,  Haddix AC,  Irwin KL,  Greifinger RB. Cost-effectiveness of universal screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in US jails. J Urban Health 2004; 81 453–71.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[18] Hu D,  Hook EW,  Goldie SJ. Screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 years of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141 501–13.
PubMed |

[19] Blake DR,  Gaydos CA,  Quinn TC. Cost-effectiveness of screening adolescent males for chlamydia on admission to detention. Sex Transm Dis 2004; 31 85–95.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[20] Thomas JC,  Schoenbach VJ,  Weiner DH,  Parker EA,  Earp JA. Rural gonorrhea in the south-eastern United States: a neglected epidemic? Am J Epidemiol 1996; 143 269–77.
CAS | PubMed |

[21] Ethier KA,  Kershaw T,  Niccolai L,  Lewis JB,  Ickovics JR. Adolescent women underestimate their susceptibility to sexually transmitted infections. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79 408–11.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[22] Anderko L,  Uscian M. The effectiveness of a community-level HIV/STD prevention program in a three-county rural area. Fam Community Health 2000; 23 46–58.


[23] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Risks for HIV infection among persons residing in rural areas and small cities – selected sites, southern United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998; 47 974–8.
PubMed |

[24] Michelson KN,  Thomas JC,  Boyd C,  Janssens AH. Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a rural population: the importance of screening men. Int J STD AIDS 1999; 10 32–7.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[25] Root DT,  Hickner JM,  Nelson TC. Prevalence and prediction of chlamydia cervical infection in a rural area: an UPRNet project. J Fam Pract 1999; 33 369–74.


[26] Winter L,  Goldy AS,  Baer C. Prevalence and epidemiologic correlates of Chlamydia trachomatis in rural and urban populations. Sex Transm Dis 1990; 17 30–6.
CAS | PubMed |

[27] Shaw E,  Roberts D,  Connor PD. Prevalence of and risk factors for chlamydia in a rural pregnant population. J Fam Pract 1995; 41 257–60.
CAS | PubMed |

[28] Ferris DG,  Litker M. Chlamydial cervical infections in rural and urban pregnant women. South Ed J. 1993; 86 611–4.
CrossRef | CAS |

[29] Bendall RP,  Keane FE,  Barlow MJ,  Paynter SJ. Chlamydia screening in a rural population: access, outcomes and health-care planning. Int J STD AIDS 2007; 18 89–92.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[30] Hilger TM,  Smith EM,  Ault K. Predictors of Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women attending rural Midwest family planning clinics. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2001; 9 3–8.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[31] Pujazon-Zazik M,  Park MJ. To tweet or not to tweet: gender differences and potential positive and negative outcomes of adolescents’ social internet use. Am J Men’s Health 2010; 4 77–85.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[32] Williams AL,  Merten MJ. A review of online social networking profiles by adolescents: implications for future research and intervention. Adolescence 2008; 43 253–74.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[33] Hansen DL,  Derry HA,  Resnick PJ,  Richardson CR. Adolescents searching for health information on the internet: an observational study. J Med Internet Res 2003; 5 e25.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[34] Owens SL,  Arora N,  Quinn N,  Peeling RW,  Holmes KK,  Gaydos CA. Utilising the internet to test for sexually transmitted infections: results of a survey and accuracy testing. Sex Transm Infect 2010; 86 112–6.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[35] Gaydos CA,  Dwyer K,  Barnes M,  Rizzo-Price PA,  Wood BJ,  Flemming T, et al. Internet-based screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to reach non-clinic populations with mailed self-administered vaginal swabs. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33 451–7.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[36] Lim EJ,  Haar J,  Morgan J. Can text messaging results reduce time to treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis? Sex Transm Infect 2008; 84 563–4.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[37] Menon-Johansson AS,  McNaught F,  Mandalia S,  Sullivan AK. Texting decreases the time to treatment for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Sex Transm Infect 2006; 82 49–51.
CrossRef | CAS | PubMed |

[38] Blake DR,  Maldeis N,  Barnes MR,  Hardick A,  Quinn TC,  Gaydos CA. Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis using cervical swabs, urine, and self-obtained vaginal swabs in a sexually transmitted disease clinic setting. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35 649–55.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[39] Gaydos CA,  Rizzo-Price PA,  Barnes M,  Dwyer K,  Wood BJ,  Hogan MT. The use of focus groups to design an internet-based program for chlamydia screening with self-administered vaginal swabs: what women want. Sex Health 2006; 3 209–15.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[40] Gaydos CA,  Barnes M,  Aumakhan B,  Quinn N,  Agreda P,  Whittle P, et al. Can e-technology through the Internet be used as a new tool to address the Chlamydia trachomatis epidemic by home sampling and vaginal swabs? Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36 577–80.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[41] Gaydos CA , Barnes M , Aumakhan B , Quinn N , Agreda P , Whittle P , Jett-Goheen M , Hogan T . Internet and home collection to screen males with self-obtained penile swabs and urine for C. trachomatis, T. vaginalis, and N. gonorrhoeae. (talk). 18th ISSTDR, London, England; June 28–July 1, 2009.

[42] Montoya JA,  Kent CK,  Rotblatt H,  McCright J,  Kerndt PR,  Klausner JD. Social marketing campaign significantly associated with increases in syphilis testing among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32 395–9.
CrossRef | PubMed |

[43] Martínez-Donate AP,  Zellner JA,  Fernández-Cerdeño A,  Sañudo F,  Hovell MF,  Sipan CL, et al. Hombres Sanos: exposure and response to a social marketing HIV prevention campaign targeting heterosexually identified Latino men who have sex with men and women. AIDS Educ Prev 2009; 21 124–36.
CrossRef | PubMed |



Rent Article (via Deepdyve) Export Citation Cited By (8)