Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Sex Transm Infect. 2010 Aug;86(4):310-4. doi: 10.1136/sti.2010.043422. Epub 2010 Jun 15.
To assess the impact of computer-assisted interview compared with pen and paper on disclosure of sexual behaviour, diagnostic testing by clinicians, infections diagnosed and referral for counselling.
Two-centre parallel three-arm randomised controlled open trial. Computer-generated randomisation with allocation concealment using sealed envelopes.
Two London teaching hospital sexual health clinics.
2351 clinic attenders over the age of 16 years.
Computer-assisted self-interview (CASI). Computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI). Pen and paper interview (PAPI).
Diagnostic tests ordered, sexually transmitted infections (STI).
Disclosure of sexual risk, referral for counselling.
801, 763 and 787 patients randomly allocated to receive CASI, CAPI and PAPI. 795, 744 and 779 were available for intention-to-treat analysis. Significantly more diagnostic testing for hepatitis B and C and rectal samples in the CAPI arm (odds for more testing relative to PAPI 1.32; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.59). This pattern was not seen among CASI patients. HIV testing was significantly lower among CASI patients (odds for less testing relative to PAPI 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90). STI diagnoses were not significantly different by trial arm. A summary measure of seven prespecified sensitive behaviours found greater reporting with CASI (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.6) and CAPI (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.7) compared with PAPI.
CASI and CAPI can generate greater recording of risky behaviour than traditional PAPI. Increased disclosure did not increase STI diagnoses. Safeguards may be needed to ensure that clinicians are prompted to act upon disclosures made during self-interview.
评估计算机辅助访谈与纸笔访谈相比对性行为披露、临床医生诊断检测、诊断感染和咨询转诊的影响。
两中心平行三臂随机对照开放试验。使用密封信封进行计算机生成的随机分组和分配隐藏。
两家位于伦敦的教学医院性健康诊所。
2351 名年龄在 16 岁以上的就诊者。
计算机辅助自我访谈(CASI)、计算机辅助个人访谈(CAPI)、纸笔访谈(PAPI)。
诊断检测、性传播感染(STI)。
性风险披露、咨询转诊。
801、763 和 787 名患者随机分配接受 CASI、CAPI 和 PAPI。795、744 和 779 名患者可进行意向治疗分析。CAPI 组乙型肝炎和丙型肝炎和直肠样本的诊断检测明显更多(与 PAPI 相比,检测更多的优势比为 1.32;95%CI 为 1.09 至 1.59)。在 CASI 患者中未观察到这种模式。CASI 患者的 HIV 检测明显较低(与 PAPI 相比,检测较少的优势比为 0.73;95%CI 为 0.59 至 0.90)。试验臂之间的性传播感染诊断没有显著差异。七个预设敏感行为的综合指标发现,与 PAPI 相比,CASI(比值比 1.4;95%CI 为 1.2 至 1.6)和 CAPI(比值比 1.4;95%CI 为 1.2 至 1.7)报告的行为更多。
与传统的 PAPI 相比,CASI 和 CAPI 可以更准确地记录危险行为。更多的披露并没有增加性传播感染的诊断。可能需要采取一些保障措施,以确保临床医生在自我访谈中发现的披露时被提示采取行动。