Differences in demographics and risk factors among men attending public v non-public STD clinics in Baltimore, Maryland

Objective: To compare the demographics and risk factors of men who utilise the services of a municipal public sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic with those who utilise the services provided by a non-public men's STD clinic operated by a not for profit primary care clinic. Methods: A record based review of the characteristics and STD prevalence of men who visited a non-public STD clinic in Baltimore, Maryland, compared with those of a random sample of male attendees of a public STD clinic. Data abstracted from the records included information on age, race/ethnicity, self reported risk behaviours, and STD tests and results. We used χ(2) analysis as well as bivariate and multivariate modelling to compare differences in categorical factors between clinics groups. Results: Men who utilised the services at the non-public STD clinic were more often white (71% v 3%, p<0.001), MSM (65% v 2%, p<0.001), and presented for general screening (52% v 15%, p<0.001) compared to those at the public clinic. In addition, they more frequently reported ⩾3 partners (22% v 11%, p = 0.005), and having an HIV positive partner (10% v 3%, p = 0.005). Factors independently associated with attendance at non-public clinic in multivariate analysis were general screening as reason for visit (OR = 11.0, p<0.001), having 3+ partners in past month (OR = 10.5, p = 0.002), and "sometimes" using condoms (OR = 3.6, p = 0.033). Conclusions: Non-public STD clinics can reach a distinct segment of the male population with high risk sexual behaviours that might not attend public STD clinics

Patient, provider, and clinic characteristics associated with public STD clinic patient satisfaction

Objectives: There is a lack of information describing levels of patient satisfaction among patients seeking sexually transmitted diseases (STD) care in a public clinic setting. We sought to identify patient, provider, and clinic characteristics associated with patient satisfaction within public STD clinics. Methods: A cross sectional survey with random sampling was conducted among patients attending two public STD clinics. Satisfaction was assessed using questions from validated national surveys. Outcomes for multivariate logistic regression analysis were ratings of overall health care and clinician. Results: 499/605 (82%) patients were enrolled. Patients were mean age 29 years, 51% male, 94% black. Lower rating of clinician technical skills (OR = 15.6 clinic A, OR = 7.9 clinic B) and clinic environment (OR = 3.9 clinic A, OR = 9.6 clinic B) were associated with lower healthcare rating, as was lower rating of television/video in waiting room (OR = 10.2, clinic A) and dysuria (OR = 4.2, clinic B). Higher clinician rating (OR = 0.58, clinic A) and receiving written materials (OR = 0.44, clinic B) were protective of lower healthcare rating. Risks for lower clinician rating at clinic A were greater pain, problems getting care, lower rating of clinician technical skill, and overall health care, while receiving written materials was protective. At clinic B, lower rating of clinician technical skill and clinic environment were risks for lower clinician rating. Conclusions: Patient satisfaction was associated with modifiable provider and clinic characteristics. Results from our study indicate a need to examine whether health outcomes of STD management vary by patient satisfaction

Gonorrhoea reinfection in heterosexual STD clinic attendees: longitudinal analysis of risks for first reinfection

Objectives: Gonorrhoea is associated with adverse reproductive health outcomes, including pelvic inflammatory disease and increased HIV transmission. Our objective was to determine the association of demographic factors, sexual risk behaviours, and drug use with incident gonorrhoea reinfection among public STD clinic clients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study conducted from January 1994 through October 1998, of heterosexual public STD clinic attendees age ≥12 years having at least one gonorrhoea infection in Baltimore, MD. The outcome was first incident gonorrhoea reinfection over a maximum 4.8 years, compared in STD clinic clients with or without sexual risk behaviours and drug use at initial gonorrhoea infection. Results: 910 reinfections occurred among 8327 individuals and 21 246 person years of observation, for an overall incidence of 4.28 reinfections per 100 person years (95% CI 4.03 to 4.53). Median time to reinfection was 1.00 year (95% CI 0.91 to 1.07 years). In multivariate Cox regression, increased reinfection risk was associated with male sex, younger age, greater number of recent sex partners, and having a sex partner who is a commercial sex worker. Injection drug use and coming to the clinic as an STD contact were protective. Among risk factors that differed significantly between men and women, injection drug use was protective of reinfection in men, and "any" condom use was a risk factor for reinfection in women Conclusions: Reinfection represents a significant proportion of STD clinic visits for gonorrhoea. Prevention counselling and routine screening for patients at high risk for reinfection should be considered to maximally reduce transmission and resource utilisation

Use of urine polymerase chain reaction to define the prevalence and clinical presentation of Trichomonas vaginalis in men attending an STD clinic

Methods: Men attending a public STD clinic in Baltimore, Maryland, were evaluated between March and July 2000. Clinicians recorded a standardised history and clinical examination. Urethral swab specimens were collected for Gram stain and Neisseria gonorrhoeae culture. First fraction urine samples were evaluated with TV culture and chlamydia and TV polymerase chain reaction (PCR). True positive TV was defined as a positive TV culture or a positive TV PCR confirmed with a second primer set. Results: 355 men were evaluated in 363 visits. The prevalence of gonorrhoea, TV, and chlamydia were 19%, 13%, and 11%, respectively. In men over 28 years, the prevalence of TV was significantly higher than chlamydia. Age and urethritis by Gram stain were associated with a positive result on TV culture (p=0.03 and p=0.02, respectively) but not associated with TV infection as defined by a positive TV culture or a confirmed TV PCR. Discharge or dysuria was reported in 47% and 22% of men with TV, respectively. Conclusions: TV prevalence in an urban STD clinic setting was high. Older age and urethritis were not significantly associated with TV infection as defined by a positive TV culture or a confirmed TV PCR

Audio computer assisted self interview and face to face interview modes in assessing response bias among STD clinic patients

Background: Audio computer assisted self interview (ACASI) may minimise social desirability bias in the ascertainment of sensitive behaviours. The aim of this study was to describe the difference in reporting risk behaviour in ACASI compared to a face to face interview (FFI) among public sexually transmitted diseases (STD) clinic attendees. Study design: Randomly selected patients attending a public STD clinic in Baltimore, Maryland, sequentially took an ACASI formatted risk behaviour assessment followed by an FFI conducted by a single clinician, with both interview modalities surveying sexual and drug use behaviours. Binary responses were compared using the sign test, and categorical responses were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test to account for repeated measures. Results: 671 (52% men, mean age 30 years, 95% African American) of 795 clinic attendees screened consented to participate. Subjects affirmed sensitive sexual behaviours such as same sex contact (p = 0.012), receptive rectal sexual exposure (p<0.001), orogenital contact (p<0.001), and a greater number of sex partners in the past month (p<0.001) more frequently with ACASI than with an FFI. However, there were no differences in participant responses to questions on use of illicit drugs or needle sharing. Conclusions: Among STD clinic patients, reporting of sensitive sexual risk behaviours to clinicians was much more susceptible to social desirability bias than was reporting of illegal drug use behaviours. In STD clinics where screening of sexual risk is an essential component of STD prevention, the use of ACASI may be a more reliable assessment method than traditional FFI