Public health · 2017
State-level gonorrhea rates and expedited partner therapy laws: insights from time series analyses.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Owusu-Edusei K, Cramer R, Chesson H W, Gift T L, Leichliter J S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined state-level monthly gonorrhea morbidity and assessed the potential impact of existing expedited partner therapy (EPT) laws in relation to the time that the laws were enacted.
STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal study.
METHODS: We obtained state-level monthly gonorrhea morbidity (number of cases/100,000 for males, females and total) from the national surveillance data. We used visual examination (of morbidity trends) and an autoregressive time series model in a panel format with intervention (interrupted time series) analysis to assess the impact of state EPT laws based on the months in which the laws were enacted.
RESULTS: For over 84% of the states with EPT laws, the monthly morbidity trends did not show any noticeable decreases on or after the laws were enacted. Although we found statistically significant decreases in gonorrhea morbidity within four of the states with EPT laws (Alaska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Vermont), there were no significant decreases when the decreases in the four states were compared contemporaneously with the decreases in states that do not have the laws.
CONCLUSION: We found no impact (decrease in gonorrhea morbidity) attributable exclusively to the EPT law(s). However, these results do not imply that the EPT laws themselves were not effective (or failed to reduce gonorrhea morbidity), because the effectiveness of the EPT law is dependent on necessary intermediate events/outcomes, including sexually transmitted infection service providers' awareness and practice, as well as acceptance by patients and their partners.
STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal study.
METHODS: We obtained state-level monthly gonorrhea morbidity (number of cases/100,000 for males, females and total) from the national surveillance data. We used visual examination (of morbidity trends) and an autoregressive time series model in a panel format with intervention (interrupted time series) analysis to assess the impact of state EPT laws based on the months in which the laws were enacted.
RESULTS: For over 84% of the states with EPT laws, the monthly morbidity trends did not show any noticeable decreases on or after the laws were enacted. Although we found statistically significant decreases in gonorrhea morbidity within four of the states with EPT laws (Alaska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Vermont), there were no significant decreases when the decreases in the four states were compared contemporaneously with the decreases in states that do not have the laws.
CONCLUSION: We found no impact (decrease in gonorrhea morbidity) attributable exclusively to the EPT law(s). However, these results do not imply that the EPT laws themselves were not effective (or failed to reduce gonorrhea morbidity), because the effectiveness of the EPT law is dependent on necessary intermediate events/outcomes, including sexually transmitted infection service providers' awareness and practice, as well as acceptance by patients and their partners.