Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30418418›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2019

Text Messaging After HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infection Screening: Do Patients' Profiles Matter?

Pénélope Troude, Christophe Segouin, Christelle Duteil, Marc Shelly, Elise de La Rochebrochard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pénélope Troude
Christophe Segouin
Christelle Duteil
Marc ShellyCeGIDD, HU Saint-Louis-Lariboisière-Fernand Widal, AP-HP, Paris.
Elise de La Rochebrochard

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundText messaging after sexually transmitted infection (STI)/HIV screening may be a cost-effective means of improving patient care, but it may not be appropriate for all patients. This study aimed to explore the profiles of patients who did not participate in a short message service (SMS) program after STI/HIV testing.

methodsIn October 2016, 396 patients in Paris were screened for STI/HIV and were invited to complete an anonymous self-administered questionnaire. Patients were offered the possibility of being notified by SMS after testing, 68% accepted (SMS group) and 32% did not (no-SMS group). Each of the 100 patients from the no-SMS group who had completed the questionnaire was matched with the next patient from the SMS group. Factors associated with nonparticipation in the SMS program were studied using conditional logistic regression models.

resultsParticipation in the SMS program was not related to STI screening characteristics (screening results and seriousness of the diseases screened) but seemed to be related to patient characteristics. In multivariate analysis, compared with patients in the SMS group, those in the no-SMS group were more often older, socially less favored (born in Africa or Asia, no university diploma, living outside Paris). They also more often declined to answer sexual questions, which could reflect a need for privacy and discretion.

conclusionsAlthough SMS after STI/HIV screening is well accepted, it does not suit all patients. Several contact options should be proposed to comply with patients' preferences and to reduce the risk of nondelivery of STI screening results.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningText MessagingAdultAge FactorsAsian PeopleBlack PeopleDelivery of Health CareFemaleHIVHIV InfectionsHospitals, UniversityHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedParis

Identifiers

PMID30418418
PMCPMC6380441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.