Interventions to Improve Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening in Clinic-Based Settings.

BACKGROUND: The asymptomatic nature and suboptimal screening rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) call for implementation of successful interventions to improve screening in community-based clinic settings with attention to cost and resources. METHODS: We used MEDLINE to systematically review comparative analyses of interventions to improve STD (chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis) screening or rescreening in clinic-based settings that were published between January 2000 and January 2014. Absolute differences in the percent of the target population screened between comparison groups or relative percent increase in the number of tests or patients tested were used to score the interventions as highly effective (>20% increase) or moderately effective (5%-19% increase) in improving screening. Published cost of the interventions was described where available and, when not available, was estimated. RESULTS: Of the 4566 citations reviewed, 38 articles describing 42 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Of the 42 interventions, 16 (38.1%) were categorized as highly effective and 14 (33.3%) as moderately effective. Effective low-cost interventions (<$1000) included the strategic placement of specimen collection materials or automatic collection of STD specimens as part of a routine visit (7 highly effective and 1 moderately effective) and the use of electronic health records (EHRs; 3 highly effective and 4 moderately effective). Patient reminders for screening or rescreening (via text, telephone, and postcards) were highly effective (3) or moderately effective (2) and low or moderate cost (<$1001-10,000). Interventions with dedicated clinic staff to improve STD screening were highly effective (2) or moderately effective in improving STD screening (1) but high-cost ($10,001-$100,000). CONCLUSIONS: Successful interventions include changing clinic flow to routinely collect specimens for testing, using EHR screening reminders, and reminding patients to get screened or rescreened. These strategies can be tailored to different clinic settings to improve screening at a low cost.

Chlamydia partner services for females in California family planning clinics.

BACKGROUND: Prompt treatment of exposed partners is critical for preventing further transmission of chlamydia, reinfection, and sequelae among females. Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) has been allowable in California since 2001; however, few data are available regarding PDPT use and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Eight family planning clinics participated in a partner services evaluation from 2005 to 2006. Females aged 16 to 35 years with chlamydia were interviewed to determine the partner service received and partner treatment outcomes; a subset of partners was also interviewed. Determinants of reported partner treatment were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Selected medical records were reviewed to assess reinfection rates. RESULTS: Overall, 743 female patients disclosed 952 partners; 58% of whom were identified as steady partners. Reported partner services included concurrent patient-partner treatment visits (15% of partners), PDPT (19%), patient referral (55%), health department referral (0.1%), and no partner management (11%). On the basis of patient report, 82% of partners were notified and 54% received treatment. Of the 166 (17%) partners interviewed, 139 (84%) reported that they had received treatment, which correlated well with patient report. Reported partner treatment was higher for concurrent treatment visits and PDPT (79% and 80%, respectively) compared to patient referral (44%, P < 0.0001). Adjusted for clinic and relationship status, partners managed with concurrent treatment visits or PDPT were more likely to receive treatment compared with partners managed with patient referral (adjusted odds ratios, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-5.8 and adjusted odds ratios, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-7.2, respectively). Among the patients retested within 6 months after treatment, 18% were reinfected; reinfection rates did not differ by type of partner service. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall rates of reported partner treatment were low, concurrent patient-partner treatment visits and PDPT were associated with significantly higher rates of partner treatment. However, these methods may be underutilized in California family planning settings.