Future pharmacy-based chlamydia screening: Consumer Preference

Sajni Gudka, Jila Misaghian, Rhonda Clifford

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: Chlamydia trachomatis is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection in Australia and a serious public health concern. Barriers to screening for C. trachomatis include high costs, clinic waiting times, inconvenience, fear of medical procedures, stigma and lack of privacy. Advances in nucleic acid amplifi cation techniques have enabled the choice of 2 self-collected and non-invasive sampling methods for detecting C. trachomatis: fi rst-void urine and low vaginal swab. Aim: To determine whether women prefer fi rst-void urine or low vaginal swab for detecting C. trachomatis. Method: A self-administered survey was piloted and refi ned. Women from a university and a shopping centre were invited to participate in the survey. The survey gathered data on demographics, previous experiences with sample collection and preference for a future pharmacy-based chlamydia screening intervention. Participants completed the survey independently and sealed it in the envelope provided. Results: Median age of the 100 female participants was 22 (range 20-23) years. 58% preferred to collect fi rst-void urine and 42% preferred a low vaginal swab. Almost half of the women noted it would be easy to collect both samples. Of the 40 women with previous experience of collecting a fi rst-void urine sample, signifi cantly more would prefer low vaginal swabs in the future (p = 0.02). Conclusion: Women did not prefer one method of sample collection over the other. Both sampling methods were either 'very easy' or 'easy'.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)15-18
    JournalJournal of Pharmacy Practice and Research
    Volume43
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Future pharmacy-based chlamydia screening: Consumer Preference'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this