Sexually transmitted diseases · 2005
Randomized trial of supplementary interviewing techniques to enhance recall of sexual partners in contact interviews.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание 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.
Brewer Devon D, Potterat John J, Muth Stephen Q, Malone Patricia Z, Montoya Pamela, Green David L, Rogers Helen L, Cox Patricia A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: People with multiple sex partners tend to forget a significant proportion when recalling them.
METHODS: Randomized trial of supplementary interviewing techniques during routine partner notification contact interviews for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in Colorado Springs, CO. Cases with multiple sex partners in the last 3 months (n = 123) participated. Interviewers prompted nonspecifically and read back the list of elicited partners after cases recalled partners on their own. We then randomly assigned cases to receive 1 of 3 sets of recall cues: (1) an experimental set of cues consisting of locations where people meet partners, role relationships, network ties, and first letters of names; (2) another experimental set including common first names; and (3) control cues referring to individual characteristics (e.g., physical appearance).
RESULTS: Nonspecific prompting and reading back the list each increased the number of additional partners elicited and located by 3% to 5% on average. On average, the combined location/role/letter/network cues elicited more additional partners (0.57) than did the first-name (0.29) and individual characteristics (0.28) cues. The location and first-name cues were the most effective in eliciting located partners. The supplementary techniques increased the number of new cases found by 12% and, importantly, identified branches of the sexual network that would not otherwise have been discovered.
CONCLUSION: Elicitation of sex partners can be enhanced in contact interviews with simple interviewing techniques, resulting in improved network ascertainment and sexually transmitted disease case finding.
METHODS: Randomized trial of supplementary interviewing techniques during routine partner notification contact interviews for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in Colorado Springs, CO. Cases with multiple sex partners in the last 3 months (n = 123) participated. Interviewers prompted nonspecifically and read back the list of elicited partners after cases recalled partners on their own. We then randomly assigned cases to receive 1 of 3 sets of recall cues: (1) an experimental set of cues consisting of locations where people meet partners, role relationships, network ties, and first letters of names; (2) another experimental set including common first names; and (3) control cues referring to individual characteristics (e.g., physical appearance).
RESULTS: Nonspecific prompting and reading back the list each increased the number of additional partners elicited and located by 3% to 5% on average. On average, the combined location/role/letter/network cues elicited more additional partners (0.57) than did the first-name (0.29) and individual characteristics (0.28) cues. The location and first-name cues were the most effective in eliciting located partners. The supplementary techniques increased the number of new cases found by 12% and, importantly, identified branches of the sexual network that would not otherwise have been discovered.
CONCLUSION: Elicitation of sex partners can be enhanced in contact interviews with simple interviewing techniques, resulting in improved network ascertainment and sexually transmitted disease case finding.