4.1 Article

Retesting young STI clinic visitors with urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the Netherlands; response to a text message reminder and reinfection rates: a prospective study with historical controls

Journal

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
Volume 92, Issue 2, Pages 124-129

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2015-052115

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The objective of this study is to assess the effect of reminder text messages 6 months after the initial treatment on retest and chlamydia reinfection rates in young heterosexuals compared with a historical control group and to assess factors associated with both outcomes. Methods Heterosexual people (aged 16-23 years), testing positive for urogenital chlamydia, were offered a retest after 6 months. Participants received a text message reminder at 6 months after the initial chlamydia diagnosis. Rates of retest uptake and the result of the retest were analysed using Cox regression. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated to identify factors associated with these outcomes. Furthermore, the retest rate was compared with the retest rate of a historical control group. Results 30.6% (253/838) of the study group returned within 5-8 months compared with 9.2% (140/1530) in the historical control group. Women and persons who were not notified for a sexually transmitted infection (STI) at inclusion were more likely to return for a retest. 20.4% (56/275) of participants had a chlamydia reinfection upon retesting. Reinfection was higher in participants reporting STI-related symptoms (PR 3.2, 95% CI1.8 to 5.6) and in participants who were notified for an STI at retest (PR 5.3, 95% CI 2.4 to 11.5). Conclusions A text message reminder appeared to have a clear, positive impact on the resulting retest rate. These results also indicate that retesting is necessary to identify chlamydia reinfections.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available