Effectiveness of the VOICES/VOCES sexually transmitted disease/human immunodeficiency virus prevention intervention when administered by health department staff: does it work in the "real world"?

BACKGROUND: Prevention providers wonder whether benefits achieved in the original, researcher-led, efficacy trials of interventions are replicated when the intervention is delivered in real-world settings by their agency's staff. METHODS: A replication study was conducted at 2 public sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics (New York City and San Juan, PR). Using a controlled trial design, intervention (VOICES/VOCES) and comparison conditions (regular clinic services) were assigned in alternating 4-week blocks. Trained agency staff delivered the intervention. Effectiveness was assessed for incident STDs, redemption of coupons for condoms at neighborhood location after the visit, and improved knowledge and attitudes about STDs and condoms. RESULTS: A total of 3365 patients were recruited, completed the protocol, and followed through STD surveillance systems for an average of 17 months. Of 397 with an incident infection, 226 (13.4%) were among those enrolled during comparison blocks; 171 were among those in the intervention condition (10.2%). Controlling for site and gender, participants enrolled during intervention blocks were significantly less likely to have an incident STD reported to the surveillance system (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.96). Intervention block participants scored higher on scales of STD knowledge (4.89 vs. 3.87, P < 0.001) and condom knowledge, attitude, and efficacy (10.98 vs. 9.16, P < 0.001). More of those exposed to VOICES/VOCES redeemed condoms (P < 0.05). Positive effects were more consistent in New York, which may be related to fidelity of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A packaged human immunodeficiency virus prevention intervention can be delivered by agencies, with benefits similar to those achieved in the research setting.

Misclassification of the stages of syphilis: implications for surveillance.

SHORT SUMMARY: Syphilis cases were reviewed to see if reported stages met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition. Classification was excellent for primary and secondary and good for late latent, but half of early latent and unknown duration were misclassified. New surveillance definitions are suggested, comments requested. BACKGROUND: Uncertainty when staging latent syphilis should lead clinicians to call it late latent (requires more treatment) and disease investigators to call it early latent (priority for partner investigation). Accurate surveillance requires consistent case definitions. OBJECTIVE: Assess validity of reported syphilis stages. METHODS: Record reviews in 6 jurisdictions to determine if reported cases met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definitions. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-three records from 6 jurisdictions in 2002 showed excellent agreement for reported primary (94.0%) and secondary (95.4%), good agreement for late latent (80.2%), and poor agreement for early latent (48.4%) and unknown duration (49.7%). Unknown duration (age < or =35 and nontreponemal test titer > or =32) was often misinterpreted to mean "not known." Early latent (within the past year, documented: seroconversion, fourfold titer increase, symptoms, or contact with an independently documented early syphilis case) was often misinterpreted to include patients with risky behavior, young age, or high nontreponemal test titers. CONCLUSIONS: The unknown duration stage should be dropped. Surveillance of latent syphilis would be more consistent if cases were reported as having high or low titers on nontreponemal test. Alternative approaches are solicited from readers.