Sexually Active HIV-Positive Patients Frequently Report Never Using Condoms in Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interviews Conducted at Routine Clinical Visits

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce R. Schackman ◽  
Zubin Dastur ◽  
Quanhong Ni ◽  
Mark A. Callahan ◽  
Judith Berger ◽  
...  
PLoS ONE ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. e9149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa J. Estes ◽  
Linda E. Lloyd ◽  
Michelle Teti ◽  
Sheela Raja ◽  
Lisa Bowleg ◽  
...  

Contraception ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra M. Minnis ◽  
Angella Muchini ◽  
Stephen Shiboski ◽  
Magda Mwale ◽  
Charles Morrison ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer McNeely ◽  
Shiela M. Strauss ◽  
John Rotrosen ◽  
Arianne Ramautar ◽  
Marc N. Gourevitch

Field Methods ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-273
Author(s):  
Maichou Lor ◽  
Nora Cate Schaeffer ◽  
Roger L. Brown ◽  
Barbara J. Bowers

This study describes a method for collecting data from nonliterate, non-English-speaking populations. Our audio computer-assisted self-interview instrument with color-labeled response categories was designed for use with helper assistance. The study included 30 dyads of nonliterate older Hmong respondents and family helpers answering questions about health. Analysis of video recordings identified respondents’ problems and helpers’ strategies to address these problems. Seven dyads displayed the paradigmatic question–answer sequence for all items, while 23 departed from the paradigmatic sequence at least once. Reports and pauses were the most common signs of problems displayed by respondents. Paraphrasing questions or response categories and providing examples were the most common helper strategies. Future research could assess the impact of helpers’ strategies on data quality.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S212-S213
Author(s):  
Timothy William. Menza ◽  
Lauren Lipira ◽  
Amisha Bhattarai ◽  
Joseph Ramirez ◽  
Roberto Orellana

Abstract Background Rectal gonorrhea and Chlamydia are common and predict HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men (MSM); however, screening for rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is not routine. Methods In 2017, we recruited sexually-active MSM in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area through venue-based sampling. Our outcome of interest was self-reported rectal STI screening in the prior 12 months. Stratified by HIV status, we assessed the prevalence and demographic, healthcare, clinical, and behavioral predictors of screening. Results Of 448 participants, 168 (37.5%) reported rectal STI screening. One hundred twenty-seven (35.8%) of 355 HIV-negative men, 41 (58.6%) of 70 HIV-positive men, and none of 23 men who did not know their HIV status reported screening. Among HIV-negative men, having a healthcare provider who offered HIV testing (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]=2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43, 3.04), a syphilis diagnosis (aPR=1.32; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.69), use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (aPR=1.57; 95% CI 1.21, 2.04), and condomless anal sex with casual partners in the prior 12 months (aPR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.36, 2.22) independently predicted screening for rectal STI in multivariable analysis. HIV-positive men who reported having a provider who always or often initiates conversations about sex were significantly more likely to report screening compared with men who did not have such a provider (aPR=1.48; 95% CI: 1.06, 2.06). Conclusion Rectal STI screening is not universal in a venue-based sample of sexually-active MSM. Implementing innovative, acceptable, and accessible screening practices and improving provider comfort with talking about sex are paramount to increasing rectal STI screening. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document