Self-collection of samples as an additional approach to deliver testing services for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

meta-analysis self-collection sexually transmitted infections sti diagnosis sti testing

Journal

BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 06 12 2018
revised: 28 03 2019
accepted: 30 03 2019
entrez: 30 5 2019
pubmed: 30 5 2019
medline: 30 5 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Self-collection of samples for diagnostic testing offers the advantages of patient autonomy, confidentiality and convenience. Despite data showing their feasibility and accuracy, there is a need to better understand how to implement such interventions for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). To support WHO guidelines on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether self-collection of samples should be made available as an additional approach to deliver STI testing services. Peer-reviewed studies were included if they compared individuals who self-collected samples for chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis and/or trichomonas testing to individuals who had samples collected by clinicians on the following outcomes: uptake/frequency of STI testing, social harms/adverse events, positive yield (case finding), linkage to clinical assessment/treatment and reported sexual risk behaviour. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE for articles published through July 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-RCTs. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR). Eleven studies, including five RCTs and six observational studies with a total of 202 745 participants, met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in Australia, Denmark and the USA. Meta-analysis found that programmes offering self-collection of samples increased overall uptake of STI testing services (RR: 2.941, 95% CI 1.188 to 7.281) and case finding (RR: 2.166, 95% CI 1.043 to 4.498). No studies reported measuring STI testing frequency, social harms/adverse events, linkage to care or sexual risk behaviour. While greater diversity in study designs, outcomes and settings would strengthen the evidence base, findings from this review suggest that self-collection of STI samples could be an effective additional strategy to increase STI testing uptake. PROSPERO CRD42018114866.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Self-collection of samples for diagnostic testing offers the advantages of patient autonomy, confidentiality and convenience. Despite data showing their feasibility and accuracy, there is a need to better understand how to implement such interventions for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). To support WHO guidelines on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether self-collection of samples should be made available as an additional approach to deliver STI testing services.
METHODS METHODS
Peer-reviewed studies were included if they compared individuals who self-collected samples for chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis and/or trichomonas testing to individuals who had samples collected by clinicians on the following outcomes: uptake/frequency of STI testing, social harms/adverse events, positive yield (case finding), linkage to clinical assessment/treatment and reported sexual risk behaviour. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE for articles published through July 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-RCTs. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).
RESULTS RESULTS
Eleven studies, including five RCTs and six observational studies with a total of 202 745 participants, met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in Australia, Denmark and the USA. Meta-analysis found that programmes offering self-collection of samples increased overall uptake of STI testing services (RR: 2.941, 95% CI 1.188 to 7.281) and case finding (RR: 2.166, 95% CI 1.043 to 4.498). No studies reported measuring STI testing frequency, social harms/adverse events, linkage to care or sexual risk behaviour.
DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
While greater diversity in study designs, outcomes and settings would strengthen the evidence base, findings from this review suggest that self-collection of STI samples could be an effective additional strategy to increase STI testing uptake.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER UNASSIGNED
PROSPERO CRD42018114866.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31139454
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001349
pii: bmjgh-2018-001349
pmc: PMC6509609
doi:

Types de publication

Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

e001349

Subventions

Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH090173
Pays : United States

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Références

J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2002 Dec;15(5):307-13
pubmed: 12547662
Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Oct;79(5):358-61
pubmed: 14573827
Sex Transm Dis. 2004 Jan;31(1):38-51
pubmed: 14695957
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2003 Dec;30(4):637-58
pubmed: 14719842
Sex Transm Infect. 2005 Feb;81(1):53-8
pubmed: 15681724
Sex Health. 2004;1(2):121-6
pubmed: 16334994
BMC Public Health. 2006 Sep 01;6:221
pubmed: 16948838
Sex Transm Infect. 2007 Jul;83(4):286-91
pubmed: 17301105
Sex Transm Dis. 2008 Nov;35(11 Suppl):S28-33
pubmed: 18418291
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2011 Feb;24(1):78-84
pubmed: 21124216
Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Feb;38(2):74-8
pubmed: 21173720
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2011 Feb;9(2):183-94
pubmed: 21342066
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug;118(2 Pt 1):231-9
pubmed: 21775837
Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Sep;38(9):815-20
pubmed: 21844736
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2013 Feb;26(1):73-9
pubmed: 23242343
Sex Transm Dis. 2013 Jan;40(1):75-80
pubmed: 23250305
BMC Public Health. 2013 Mar 04;13:189
pubmed: 23496833
Sex Health. 2013 Dec;10(6):559-69
pubmed: 24160747
Nurs Stand. 2014 Jun 17;28(41):37-43
pubmed: 24916258
Sex Transm Dis. 2015 Jan;42(1):13-9
pubmed: 25504295
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 24;10(4):e0124310
pubmed: 25909508
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 13;10(7):e0132776
pubmed: 26168051
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 29;(9):CD011317
pubmed: 26418128
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 15;61 Suppl 8:S774-84
pubmed: 26602617
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 08;10(12):e0143304
pubmed: 26646541
Sex Transm Dis. 2016 Feb;43(2 Suppl 1):S42-52
pubmed: 26779687
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Jun 1;72(2):e26-31
pubmed: 26959189
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Feb;93(1):4-5
pubmed: 27084840
Prev Med. 2016 Oct;91:364-382
pubmed: 27373209
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Mar;93(2):445-448
pubmed: 27811311
Sex Transm Dis. 2017 Apr;44(4):211-218
pubmed: 28282646
PLoS Med. 2017 Jun 27;14(6):e1002330
pubmed: 28654670
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S31-S35
pubmed: 28684611
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S3-S15
pubmed: 28747410
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Nov;93(7):458-459
pubmed: 28778981
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S1-S2
pubmed: 29223958
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S16-S21
pubmed: 29223959
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S22-S30
pubmed: 29223960
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S81-S88
pubmed: 29223966
Sex Transm Dis. 2018 May;45(5):294-300
pubmed: 29465701
Sex Transm Dis. 2018 Apr;45(4):272-277
pubmed: 29528987
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018 May;16(5):423-432
pubmed: 29633888
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 24;13(4):e0196209
pubmed: 29689080
Lancet. 2018 Jul 28;392(10144):312-358
pubmed: 30032975
Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 3;8(1):3
pubmed: 30606262
BMJ. 1998 Jan 31;316(7128):350-1
pubmed: 9487169
BMJ. 1998 Jul 4;317(7150):26-7
pubmed: 9651263

Auteurs

Yasmin Ogale (Y)

Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Ping Teresa Yeh (PT)

Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Caitlin E Kennedy (CE)

Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Igor Toskin (I)

Department of Reproductive Health and Research, Organisation mondiale de la Santé, Geneve, Switzerland.

Manjulaa Narasimhan (M)

Department of Reproductive Health and Research, Organisation mondiale de la Santé, Geneve, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH