Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37920401›Full record

ArticleAJPM focus2023

At-Home Self-Collection of Urine or Vaginal Samples for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Screening Among Young People Who Were Assigned Female at Birth.

Tana Chongsuwat, Paula J Cody

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJPM focus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Tana ChongsuwatUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
Paula J CodyUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The U.S. has seen a rise in sexually transmitted infections; the need to increase access to screening is essential to reverse this trend, especially for vulnerable populations such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender/transsexual plus individuals, people of color, or those at a low SES. This study's primary objective is to assess preferences among people who were assigned female at birth for at-home self-collection for gonorrhea and chlamydia screening. This study aims to provide insight into the need for clinicians to adopt at-home self-collection of urine or vaginal samples to improve access to sexually transmitted infection screening. Methods: A recruitment mailer was distributed in September-October 2021. Inclusion criteria included established patients (seen within the last 3 years for clinical services either in person or through telemedicine) at a local urban federally qualified health center in the state of Wisconsin, assigned female at birth, aged 18-24 years, and speaking English language. Participants completed an anonymous online survey regarding their preferences, experiences, and likelihood of self-collecting either urine or vaginal samples for gonorrhea and chlamydia screening at home. Results: Among the total participants (N=88), 69% ( Conclusions: There is overall acceptability for at-home self-collection sexually transmitted infections screening (61 of 88=0.69; 95% CI=0.59, 0.79). Primary care clinics can expand needed screening by integrating such methods into workflows for established patients. Although this study showed that patients who are employed, attained a higher education level, and have their own insurance may prefer at-home self-collection, there is a need to focus on social determinants of health to decrease rising sexually transmitted infection rates in the U.S.

Indexed as

primary carescreeningself-collectionSexually transmitted infections

Identifiers

PMID37920401
PMCPMC10618694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.