Home Screening Compared With Clinic-Based Screening for Sexually Transmitted Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate completion rate and acceptability of home screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with clinic-based screening in a prospective cohort study. METHODS: The first 462 women enrolled in the Contraceptive Choice Project were screened at the 12-month follow-up for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae using strand displacement analysis of self-collected vaginal swabs. In a telephone interview, participants were given a choice of no-cost screening with swabs mailed to the participant's home (home-based) or screening that was available at area family planning clinics without an appointment (clinic-based). The clinic-based group also included women who elected to screen with their regular provider according to the clinician's normal practice. We analyzed the rates of screening, including patient preference and the proportion of completed tests by testing method. RESULTS: Women were more likely to choose to screen for STIs at home than at a clinic or with their own medical provider (75.7% compared with 16.1% compared with 8.2%, P<.001). Women choosing clinic testing were more likely to be African American than those choosing home testing. African-American women constituted 42% of the clinic group compared with 28% of the home group (relative risk [RR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-2.31). The groups did not differ in other demographic characteristics, STI risk factors, or access to health care. Overall, 228 women (56.6%) completed screening. Women who chose home-based testing were more likely to complete a test compared with all clinic-based testers (64.6% compared with 31.6%, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.51-2.76). CONCLUSION: Women overwhelmingly preferred to screen for STIs at home. Future interventions to increase screening rates in young women should consider alternative screening strategies such as home-based or patient-controlled testing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".