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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 52-56 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Sexually Transmitted Infections |
| Volume | 83 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2007 |
Cite this
}
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 journal › Article › Research › peer-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 -