Biomedical subjects

Glen Olthoff

Publications and source records attributed to Glen Olthoff.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Gonorrhea reinfection among sexually transmitted disease clinic attendees in Baltimore, Maryland.

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that an active follow-up program to assess for reinfection after gonorrhea treatment could be a useful disease control strategy. GOAL: We evaluated an active follow-up and repeat testing program for all Baltimore sexually transmitted disease clinic patients diagnosed with gonorrhea. STUDY DESIGN: From September 2003 to May 2004, all clients with a treated gonorrhea infection were advised to return 3 months later for repeat testing. If clients did not return as scheduled, field outreach was attempted. At follow-up visits, urine was tested for gonorrhea and consenting participants completed a behavioral survey. In addition, we reviewed morbidity records for any intercurrent gonorrhea infections reported during the project period. RESULTS: Of the 667 participants diagnosed with gonorrhea at baseline, 54 had a gonorrhea reinfection diagnosed for an incidence of 13.8 per 100 person-years. One hundred seventy-eight (27%) either presented for a follow-up visit or were located through field efforts, and of these, 5 (2.8%) had gonorrhea detected on follow-up urine testing. No measured factors had predictive value in identifying gonorrhea reinfection. CONCLUSIONS: Although reinfection rates were high, we found that field staff intervention to increase follow-up testing rates did not identify a significant amount of repeat infections compared with passive surveillance.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Defining core gonorrhea transmission utilizing spatial data.

Spatial distribution of repeat and singly occurring gonorrhea in Baltimore, Maryland, was examined to identify clusters of core transmitters. Gonorrhea reported between 2001 and 2002 was geocoded and mapped. Those with more than one gonorrhea infection separated by more than 14 days during the 2-year period were considered repeaters. Other cases were treated as isolated events. Six definitions of core transmission were examined by census tracts with the highest quintiles of 1) cases for 2001, 2) cases for 2002, 3) rates for 2001, 4) rates for 2002, 5) counts of repeaters over the 2-year period, and 6) proportion of total cases that were repeaters. Of the 6,108 gonorrhea cases analyzed, 9% were repeaters. Repeaters were more likely to be female and younger. Core areas identified by definitions based on overall disease burden agreed well with each other but had poor agreement with definitions based upon repeat infections. Repeaters clustered to a greater extent at smaller distances than did singly occurring gonorrhea cases. Repeat gonorrhea infections are prevalent in Baltimore and likely represent behavior consistent with core transmission. Census tracts of core transmission defined by geographic distribution of repeat infections may indicate foci of highest risk sexual behaviors and high transmission.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

Comparison of methods to increase repeat testing in persons treated for gonorrhea and/or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics.

BACKGROUND: Retesting 3 to 4 months after treatment for those infected with chlamydia and/or gonorrhea has been recommended. GOAL: We compared various methods of encouraging return for retesting 3 months after treatment for chlamydia or gonorrhea. STUDY: In study 1, participants were randomly assigned to: 1) brief recommendation to return, 2) intervention 1 plus $20 incentive paid at return visit, or 3) intervention 1 plus motivational counseling at the first visit and a phone reminder at 3 months. In study 2, participants at 1 clinic were randomly assigned to 4) intervention 1, 5) intervention 1 plus phone reminder, or 6) intervention 1 plus motivational counseling but no telephone reminder. RESULTS: Using multiple logistic regression, the odds ratios for interventions 2 and 3, respectively, compared with intervention 1 were 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.5) and 2.6 (95% CI, 1.3-5.0). The odds ratios for interventions 5 and 6 compared with intervention 4 were 18.1 (95% CI, 1.7-193.5) and 4.6 (95% CI, 0.4-58.0). CONCLUSIONS: A monetary incentive did not increase return rates compared with a brief recommendation. A reminder phone call seemed to be the most effective method to increase return.

Adolescent↗