scholarly journals Advances in STI Testing at Home and in Non-Clinical Settings Close to the Home

2022 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen N. Kersh
2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 393-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Hevey ◽  
Jennifer L. Walsh ◽  
Andrew E. Petroll

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective method of reducing HIV incidence. Questions remain regarding PrEP's efficacy and outcomes in real-world clinical settings. We conducted a retrospective review to assess PrEP outcomes in an academic clinic setting and focused on retention in care, reasons for discontinuation, and receipt of appropriate preventive care (immunizations, HIV testing, and STI testing). One hundred thirty-four patients were seen between 2010 and 2016 over 309 visits. One hundred sixteen patients (87%) started daily PrEP and of those, 88 (76%) attended at least one 6-month follow-up visit. Over 60% of PrEP patients completed all recommended STI screening after starting PrEP. Only 40% of patients had all appropriate immunizations at baseline; 78% had all appropriate immunizations at study completion. This study demonstrated high rates of both retention and of attaining recommended preventive care in a clinical setting outside of the rigors of clinical trials.


10.2196/14202 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. e14202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emre Sezgin ◽  
Garey Noritz ◽  
Alexander Elek ◽  
Kimberly Conkol ◽  
Steve Rust ◽  
...  

Digital health tools and technologies are transforming health care and making significant impacts on how health and care information are collected, used, and shared to achieve best outcomes. As most of the efforts are still focused on clinical settings, the wealth of health information generated outside of clinical settings is not being fully tapped. This is especially true for children with medical complexity (CMC) and their families, as they frequently spend significant hours providing hands-on medical care within the home setting and coordinating activities among multiple providers and other caregivers. In this paper, a multidisciplinary team of stakeholders discusses the value of health information generated at home, how technology can enhance care coordination, and challenges of technology adoption from a patient-centered perspective. Voice interactive technology has been identified to have the potential to transform care coordination for CMC. This paper shares opinions on the promises, limitations, recommended approaches, and challenges of adopting voice technology in health care, especially for the targeted patient population of CMC.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Randolph D. Hubach ◽  
Carlos Mahaffey ◽  
Kelley Rhoads ◽  
Andrew M. O’Neil ◽  
Campbell Ernst ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Brandão ◽  
Juliana Melo Ocarino ◽  
Kátia Maria Penido Bueno ◽  
Marisa Cotta Mancini

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Sullivan ◽  
Patrick Sullivan ◽  
Rob Stephenson

BACKGROUND Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at elevated risk for acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States, especially chlamydia and gonorrhea. While research has indicated main partners over casual partners may play a central role in STI risk, the frequency of STI screening among MSM couples is particularly low. Self-sample collection for chlamydia and gonorrhea screening has been shown to be highly accurate, and at-home STI testing has been shown to be highly acceptable among diverse populations. However, there is little research exploring the feasibility and acceptability of at-home chlamydia and gonorrhea screening among MSM couples. Our pilot study aims to help evaluate the viability of this screening modality as an intervention tool for MSM couples OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an at-home chlamydia and gonorrhea sample collection and remote lab testing program among a sample of 50 MSM couples living in the United States. METHODS This pilot study enrolled 50 MSM couples, ranging from 18-40 years old and living in the United States, who participated in a larger at-home HIV testing randomized controlled trial. Participating couples completed a pretest instructional video call and then had the option of completing at-home sample collection across three bodily sites (rectal swab, pharyngeal swab, and urine sample) for remote chlamydia and gonorrhea lab testing. For participants who completed any sample collection, they received their results via a posttest video call. All participants completed an online survey examining satisfaction and acceptability of the home testing process, experience with logistics, willingness to test at home in the future, recent sexual risk behavior, STI testing history, and linkage to care. A subset of 10 couples completed an in-depth interview about their attitudes towards the sample collection process, different decisions they made while collecting their samples, and their experience accessing treatment (for those who received a positive result). RESULTS Recruitment began in September 2017, and as of March 2019 a total of 50 couples have been enrolled. Overall, 49/50 couples have returned their samples and completed the posttest delivery call, and 10 in-depth interviews have been completed and transcribed. CONCLUSIONS Screening MSM couples at home for chlamydia and gonorrhea and providing video-facilitated results delivery may offer a tailored approach to address the increasing prevalence of these STIs. By collecting data on how MSM couples experience at-home STI screening, this project will provide valuable insight into the utility of such a service delivery program to public health interventionists and researchers alike.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S612-S612
Author(s):  
Joan M Griffin ◽  
Rachel Havyer ◽  
Karen Schaepe ◽  
Catherine Riffin ◽  
Lauren R Bangerter

Abstract The presence of family caregivers in clinical encounters is becoming more common with the aging of the US population and the continued shift of care responsibilities from health professionals in clinical settings to family caregivers at home. Patients accompanied to clinical encounters by caregivers are more likely to be older, sicker, and have lower health literacy. Research shows, however, that providers often do not initiate any caregiver participation and when they do, conversations center on relaying technical medical information rather than preferences and capacity to provide caregiving assistance. Little is known about provider perceptions of engaging caregivers in clinical encounters. Using data from 20 semi-structured interviews with physicians from primary and specialty care, we identified 3 inter-related themes about engaging caregivers in clinical encounters: 1) ambivalence about caregivers’ role in clinical encounters; 2) trepidation about posing questions directly to caregivers; and, 3) beliefs that systemic barriers exist that inhibit integration of caregivers. Providers, especially in primary care encounters, chiefly view caregivers as sources of supplemental information or for absorbing or reinforcing clinical instructions for care at home. Providers also voiced concerns about the ethics of assessing caregiver capacity to provide assistance to the patient without having clinical authority to treat or adequate resources to provide to caregivers. Finally, providers identified structural barriers, including time constraints, for integrating caregivers into the clinical care team. Findings provide insight into provider attitudes on the caregivers’ role, a perspective that is essential for understanding opportunities and challenges for implementing caregiver interventions in clinical settings.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 35-36
Author(s):  
Karen E. Sandman ◽  
Timothy J. Bell

Introduction: Cancer treatment includes conventional clinic-based infusions and various options for home administration of medication. Clinic-based treatment can be disruptive and costly to patients and caregivers, requiring transportation, time away from work/family responsibilities, and stressful clinical settings. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased concerns that patients may be exposed-or experience anxiety about exposure-to viruses and other pathogens. Potential benefits to home-based chemotherapy include cost/healthcare resource utilization savings and decreased infection exposure by avoiding clinical settings. In the COVID-19 era, ASH, ASCO, ESMO, and other groups have recommended home administration of chemotherapy, including infusions at home and self-administered oral and subcutaneous treatments, for certain cancer types where feasible. This literature review evaluated patient- and caregiver-relevant advantages of home-administered cancer therapy. Methods: A strategic literature review was conducted using the pearl growing/snowball method, wherein core publications were identified using an initial PubMed search strategy with the MeSH heading "Antineoplastic Agents/Administration & Dosage" and the search terms "Home Care Services" and "Patient Satisfaction." Results were limited to English-language publications dated January 2000 to July 2020, ≥10 study subjects, adult subjects only, with no limits for geography or cancer type. A total of 21 initial results were retrieved in PubMed. Six core publications were used to establish keywords and for bibliographic and prospective citation searches to identify additional relevant publications relating to patient preference and patient/caregiver-reported outcomes regarding cancer treatment administration settings. In addition to PubMed, the following congresses were searched: ASH (2004-2019), ASCO (2011-2020), EHA (2016-2019) and ESMO (2010-2019). Results: Thirty-one studies involving both hematologic cancers and solid tumors were identified from North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Cancer therapy was administered by patients/caregivers (ie, oral or subcutaneous) or a visiting nurse. All the studies reviewed reported benefits for home- vs clinic-based treatment. Patient expressed preference/satisfaction and willingness to continue with home-based regimens; while methodologies varied among studies, 70% to 100% of patients preferred home administration. Across studies, over half of patients receiving home treatment cited improvement in outcomes including well-being, activities of daily living, and family/social life, with benefits including convenience, comfort, reduced travel/financial burden, limited waiting time, and greater ability to maintain daily family/social activities. The impact on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could not be compared quantitatively among studies as <25% of the studies used validated tools, e.g., EORTC-QOL-C30. Among studies using validated tools, HRQoL outcomes were generally similar for patients treated at home or in-clinic. There were very few reports of patients needing or choosing to return to clinic-based care after initiating home treatment. Studies that captured safety outcomes did not report increased adverse effects or emergency room visits among patients treated at home. Of the 3 studies reporting caregiver outcomes, most caregivers expressed satisfaction with and preference for home treatment. Conclusions: The prioritization of therapies that can be administered at home has been proposed as a strategy for infection control in the COVID-19 era, but it is not currently a standard approach in the US. This targeted literature review consistently found patient-relevant benefits with home-administered chemotherapy. The identified studies provided minimal information on caregiver-reported outcomes, which is a limitation given that home-based cancer treatment impacts caregivers as well as patients. Home-based treatment may enhance quality of survival time and reduce healthcare resource utilization while maintaining clinical benefits of treatment and reducing contact with people in a busy clinical setting. While treatment decisions should consider patient preference for home-based treatment, some patients' treatment pathways will require care at an outpatient or inpatient facility. Disclosures Sandman: Pfizer Inc.: Consultancy. Bell:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.


10.2196/14481 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e14481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Sullivan ◽  
Patrick Sullivan ◽  
Rob Stephenson

Background Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at elevated risk for acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States, especially chlamydia and gonorrhea. While research has indicated main partners over casual partners may play a central role in STI risk, the frequency of STI screening among MSM couples is particularly low. Self-sample collection for chlamydia and gonorrhea screening has been shown to be highly accurate, and at-home STI testing has been shown to be highly acceptable among diverse populations. However, there is little research exploring the feasibility and acceptability of at-home chlamydia and gonorrhea screening among MSM couples. Our pilot study aims to help evaluate the viability of this screening modality as an intervention tool for MSM couples Objective The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an at-home chlamydia and gonorrhea sample collection and remote lab testing program among a sample of 50 MSM couples living in the United States. Methods This pilot study enrolled 50 MSM couples, ranging from 18-40 years old and living in the United States, who participated in a larger at-home HIV testing randomized controlled trial. Participating couples completed a pretest instructional video call and then had the option of completing at-home sample collection across three bodily sites (rectal swab, pharyngeal swab, and urine sample) for remote chlamydia and gonorrhea lab testing. For participants who completed any sample collection, they received their results via a posttest video call. All participants completed an online survey examining satisfaction and acceptability of the home testing process, experience with logistics, willingness to test at home in the future, recent sexual risk behavior, STI testing history, and linkage to care. A subset of 10 couples completed an in-depth interview about their attitudes towards the sample collection process, different decisions they made while collecting their samples, and their experience accessing treatment (for those who received a positive result). Results Recruitment began in September 2017, and as of March 2019 a total of 50 couples have been enrolled. Overall, 49/50 couples have returned their samples and completed the posttest delivery call, and 10 in-depth interviews have been completed and transcribed. Conclusions Screening MSM couples at home for chlamydia and gonorrhea and providing video-facilitated results delivery may offer a tailored approach to address the increasing prevalence of these STIs. By collecting data on how MSM couples experience at-home STI screening, this project will provide valuable insight into the utility of such a service delivery program to public health interventionists and researchers alike. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/14481


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document