4.0 Review

Predictors identifying those at increased risk for STDs: a theory-guided review of empirical literature and clinical guidelines

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages 839-851

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0956462414555930

Keywords

Sexually transmitted diseases; sexually transmitted infections; STD; STI; epidemiology; predictors; risk factors; risk assessment; chlamydia; gonorrhoea; selective testing; screening recommendations; clinical guidelines

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral Research Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are leading causes of substantial morbidity worldwide. Identification of risk factors for estimating STD risk provides opportunities for optimising service delivery in clinical settings, including improving case finding accuracy and increasing cost-efficiency by limiting the testing of low-risk individuals. The current study was undertaken to synthesise the evidence supporting commonly cited chlamydia and gonorrhoea risk factors. The level of empirical support for the following predictors was strong/moderate: age, race/ethnicity, multiple lifetime sexual partners, sex with symptomatic partners and concurrent STD diagnosis. The following predictors had weak evidence: socio-economic status, transactional sex, drug/alcohol use, condom use and history of STD diagnosis. The most frequently listed predictors among nine clinical guidelines were younger age and multiple sexual partners; the least consistently listed predictor was inconsistent condom use. We found reasonably good concordance between risk factors consistently listed in the recommendations and predictors found to have strong empirical support in the literature. There is a need to continue building the evidence base to explicate the mechanisms and pathways of STD acquisition. We recommend periodic reviews of the level of support of predictors included in clinical guidelines to ensure that they are in accordance with empirical evidence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available