4066.0: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - Board 10

Abstract #26420

Preliminary comparison of methods to increase repeat testing in persons treated for gonorrhea and/or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics

C. Kevin Malotte, DrPH1, Susan E. Middlestadt, PhD2, Matthew Hogben, PhD3, Rebecca Ledsky, MBA2, Michelle Larro, MA1, Janet St. Lawrence, PhD3, Glen Olthoff, MA4, Robert H. Settlage, MD, MPH5, and Nancy VanDevanter, DrPH6. (1) Health Science Department, California State University, Long Beach, 5500 Atherton Street, Suite 400, Long Beach, CA 90815, (2) Suite 800, Academy for Educational Development, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20009, (3) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (4) Health Department, Prince George's County, MD, (5) Department of Health Services, Los Angeles County, (6) Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

Background: Persons infected with gonorrhea (GC) and/or chlamydia (CT) are at high risk for reinfection. Infections may be asymptomatic, leading to continued transmission. Non-invasive tests allow easy re-testing. Well-planned, brief counseling interventions have been shown to have a positive behavioral impact in areas such as STD risk reduction and addictive behaviors. Monetary incentives have been shown to increase return for appointments. Methods: Participants (n=224) treated for GC and/or CT at one of two public STD clinics (Prince George’s County, MD or Los Angeles County, CA) were randomly assigned to one of three interventions designed to encourage return for re-testing in three months. These were 1) brief recommendation to return (n=76), 2) intervention 1 plus $20 incentive paid at return visit (n=72), or 3) intervention 1 plus motivational interview at time of first visit and phone reminder prior to the return date (n=76). The main outcome measure was client return for the scheduled 3-month appointment. Results: Return rates were 7%, 7%, and 24% respectively. After controlling for demographic variables and clinic site using multivariate logistic regression, the odds ratios for interventions 2 and 3, respectively, compared to intervention 1 were 1.1 (95% CI 0.3-4.2) and 6.1 (95% CI 2.5-15.0). Conclusions: Contrary to expectations, a monetary incentive did not increase the return rate compared to a brief recommendation. The intervention including a motivational interview and reminder did increase return rates. Further research on psychosocial determinants is needed to understand how this intervention had its effect.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the session, participants will be able to 1) describe three different approaches to encouraging return for STD re-testing, and 2) identify the most effective method found in this study.

Keywords: STD Prevention, Health Behavior

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.

The 129th Annual Meeting of APHA