A randomised controlled trial comparing computer-assisted with face-to-face sexual history taking in a clinical setting

R. L. Tideman, M. Y. Chen, M. K. Pitts, S. Ginige, M. Slaney, Christopher K. Fairley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: To compare computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) with routine face-to-face interview (FTFI) for sexual history taking from patients in a clinical setting. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in 2005. New, walk-in patients triaged into the centre were eligible for the study. Those who consented to the study were randomly allocated (initially at a ratio of 2:1, then 1:1) to either CASI or FTFI. Those randomised to CASI also subsequently undertook FTFI. Results: During the study period, of 713 patients approached, 611 agreed to participate in the study; 356 were randomised to FTFI and 255 to CASI. Overall, the responses to questioning using CASI and FTFI were similar except that women undertaking the CASI reported a significantly higher median number of male partners for the preceding 12 months (3 v 2, p = 0.05) and the CASI participants reported previous hepatitis B vaccination more often (50% v 37%, p = 0.01). Most participants found the CASI either easy (31; 13%) or very easy (193; 82%) to complete; 83 (35%) were comfortable and 121 (51%) were very comfortable with it. Conclusions: CASI may be a reliable, efficient and highly acceptable method for the screening of sexual risk in clinical sexual health settings and could be used routinely to improve the efficiency of clinical services.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)52-56
Number of pages5
JournalSexually Transmitted Infections
Volume83
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2007

Cite this

@article{8a83f9d10c1c4401966796a6912774fc,
title = "A randomised controlled trial comparing computer-assisted with face-to-face sexual history taking in a clinical setting",
abstract = "Aim: To compare computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) with routine face-to-face interview (FTFI) for sexual history taking from patients in a clinical setting. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in 2005. New, walk-in patients triaged into the centre were eligible for the study. Those who consented to the study were randomly allocated (initially at a ratio of 2:1, then 1:1) to either CASI or FTFI. Those randomised to CASI also subsequently undertook FTFI. Results: During the study period, of 713 patients approached, 611 agreed to participate in the study; 356 were randomised to FTFI and 255 to CASI. Overall, the responses to questioning using CASI and FTFI were similar except that women undertaking the CASI reported a significantly higher median number of male partners for the preceding 12 months (3 v 2, p = 0.05) and the CASI participants reported previous hepatitis B vaccination more often (50{\%} v 37{\%}, p = 0.01). Most participants found the CASI either easy (31; 13{\%}) or very easy (193; 82{\%}) to complete; 83 (35{\%}) were comfortable and 121 (51{\%}) were very comfortable with it. Conclusions: CASI may be a reliable, efficient and highly acceptable method for the screening of sexual risk in clinical sexual health settings and could be used routinely to improve the efficiency of clinical services.",
author = "Tideman, {R. L.} and Chen, {M. Y.} and Pitts, {M. K.} and S. Ginige and M. Slaney and Fairley, {Christopher K.}",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/sti.2006.020776",
language = "English",
volume = "83",
pages = "52--56",
journal = "Sexually Transmitted Infections",
issn = "1368-4973",
publisher = "BMJ Group",
number = "1",

}

A randomised controlled trial comparing computer-assisted with face-to-face sexual history taking in a clinical setting. / Tideman, R. L.; Chen, M. Y.; Pitts, M. K.; Ginige, S.; Slaney, M.; Fairley, Christopher K.

In: Sexually Transmitted Infections, Vol. 83, No. 1, 01.02.2007, p. 52-56.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomised controlled trial comparing computer-assisted with face-to-face sexual history taking in a clinical setting

AU - Tideman, R. L.

AU - Chen, M. Y.

AU - Pitts, M. K.

AU - Ginige, S.

AU - Slaney, M.

AU - Fairley, Christopher K.

PY - 2007/2/1

Y1 - 2007/2/1

N2 - Aim: To compare computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) with routine face-to-face interview (FTFI) for sexual history taking from patients in a clinical setting. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in 2005. New, walk-in patients triaged into the centre were eligible for the study. Those who consented to the study were randomly allocated (initially at a ratio of 2:1, then 1:1) to either CASI or FTFI. Those randomised to CASI also subsequently undertook FTFI. Results: During the study period, of 713 patients approached, 611 agreed to participate in the study; 356 were randomised to FTFI and 255 to CASI. Overall, the responses to questioning using CASI and FTFI were similar except that women undertaking the CASI reported a significantly higher median number of male partners for the preceding 12 months (3 v 2, p = 0.05) and the CASI participants reported previous hepatitis B vaccination more often (50% v 37%, p = 0.01). Most participants found the CASI either easy (31; 13%) or very easy (193; 82%) to complete; 83 (35%) were comfortable and 121 (51%) were very comfortable with it. Conclusions: CASI may be a reliable, efficient and highly acceptable method for the screening of sexual risk in clinical sexual health settings and could be used routinely to improve the efficiency of clinical services.

AB - Aim: To compare computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) with routine face-to-face interview (FTFI) for sexual history taking from patients in a clinical setting. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in 2005. New, walk-in patients triaged into the centre were eligible for the study. Those who consented to the study were randomly allocated (initially at a ratio of 2:1, then 1:1) to either CASI or FTFI. Those randomised to CASI also subsequently undertook FTFI. Results: During the study period, of 713 patients approached, 611 agreed to participate in the study; 356 were randomised to FTFI and 255 to CASI. Overall, the responses to questioning using CASI and FTFI were similar except that women undertaking the CASI reported a significantly higher median number of male partners for the preceding 12 months (3 v 2, p = 0.05) and the CASI participants reported previous hepatitis B vaccination more often (50% v 37%, p = 0.01). Most participants found the CASI either easy (31; 13%) or very easy (193; 82%) to complete; 83 (35%) were comfortable and 121 (51%) were very comfortable with it. Conclusions: CASI may be a reliable, efficient and highly acceptable method for the screening of sexual risk in clinical sexual health settings and could be used routinely to improve the efficiency of clinical services.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847109721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/sti.2006.020776

DO - 10.1136/sti.2006.020776

M3 - Article

C2 - 17098771

AN - SCOPUS:33847109721

VL - 83

SP - 52

EP - 56

JO - Sexually Transmitted Infections

JF - Sexually Transmitted Infections

SN - 1368-4973

IS - 1

ER -