4.6 Article

Screening for Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among US Women With Prenatal Care

期刊

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 125, 期 5, 页码 1211-1216

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000756

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To estimate prenatal sexually transmitted disease-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening rates among insured women with prenatal care and the association of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening with Pap testing. METHODS: We estimated prenatal screening rates for syphilis, hepatitis B, HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea among women aged 15-44 years using a 2009-2010 U.S. administrative claims database that captures information for health services provided for both Medicaid- and commercially insured persons. Procedural and diagnostic codes were used to identify pregnant women with a live birth in 2010 with continuous insurance coverage at least 210 days before delivery and at least one typical prenatal blood test. Strengths of association between chlamydia and gonorrhea screening and Pap testing were measured using a chi(2) test of independence. RESULTS: Among 98,709 Medicaid-insured pregnant women, 95,064 (96.3%) were screened for syphilis, 95,082 (96.3%) for hepatitis B, 81,339 (82.4%) for HIV, 82,047 (83.1%) for chlamydia, and 73,799 (74.8%) for gonorrhea. Among 266,012 commercially insured women, 260,079 (97.8%) were screened for syphilis, 257,675 (96.8%) for hepatitis B, 227,276 (85.4%) for HIV, 187,071 (70.3%) for chlamydia, and 182,400 (68.6%) for gonorrhea. Prenatal screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea among both groups of women was more likely to be performed if a Pap test was also done (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Prenatal screening for syphilis and hepatitis B was nearly universal among Medicaid-and commercially insured women; HIV screening rates were much lower and varied by insurance type and demographic characteristics. Chlamydia screening was suboptimal and most often occurred with Pap testing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据