SAHM 2011 Abstract August 12, 2010 (DRAFT)
Submission Goal: 8/20/10
Character limit is 3,500 including title and spaces: Current character count is 2,890
INSTRUCTIONS: “Sections should briefly describe the objectives of the study or investigation, the basic procedures (study subjects and analytical
methods), the main findings (giving specific data and the statistical significance, if possible) and the principle conclusion. Emphasize new and
important aspects of the study. It is not necessary to begin each section on a new line”
Authors: Abigail Donaldson, MD, Jessica Burns, RN, MPH, Jennifer Maehr, MD, Jonathan Ellen, MD
TITLE: Case Manager Participation in Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening Among Community-Based
Juvenile Justice-Involved Adolescent Females Purpose: Girls are becoming increasingly involved with
the juvenile justice system. Rates of both chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and neisseria gonorrhea (GC) are
higher in this population than in the general population. Girls involved in juvenile justice who are living
in the community are expected to be at even greater risk of STI because, unlike their incarcerated
counterparts, they are able to maintain involvement in sexual behaviors. However, not much is known
about rates of CT/GC in these community-based girls, and how to best provide them with screening and
treatment services. Therefore, this study examines both the feasibility of using Department of Juvenile
Services (DJS) case managers to screen urine for CG/GC using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) and
the prevalence of CT/GC in this uniquely high risk population. Methods: Ten DJS case managers were
trained by medical staff in CT/GC disease education, Maryland minor consent laws, and urine collection
and storage. They offer optional testing to their community-based, DJS-involved female adolescent
clients (N to date= 28, age 12-20 years), consent them for program participation, and collect their urine
for NAAT testing. Test results, one-on-one sexual health counseling, and treatment are provided by
licensed medical staff. All services are at no financial cost to the participant. Collected data are
compared to existing state prevalence data for incarcerated females (no comparison community-based
DJS-involved data exist). The target sample will include 250 participants over a one-year collection
period with an expected end-date of June 31, 2011. Preliminary Results: Since the initiation of the
protocol on July 1, 2010, 28 females have been tested for CT/GC among XXX females involved in
community-based DJS. Among the 28 females tested, 5 (18%) tested positive for CT and 1 (4%) tested
positive for GC; all positives have been successfully treated. The prevalence rates for this population are
comparable to the 2009 state prevalence data for incarcerated females in the same state, all of whom
are screened using urine NAAT at the time of detention (CT: XX% or XXX/XXXX and GC: X% or XXX/XXXX).
Descriptive analysis will examine case manager and participant satisfaction with the services provided.
Conclusions: Our preliminary findings suggest that in a community-supervised juvenile justice setting,
case manager-driven CT/GC screening of girls yields similar rates of disease compared to an incarcerated
population. This innovative approach to testing is effective at identifying STI’s that might otherwise go
undetected in a high-risk population of girls, and has implications for improved screening opportunities
in other community based DJS facilities.
Questions:
1.
With regard to the age range, should I include the actual range for the 28 kids, or expected per
the population?
2. OK not to include boys, even though I was IRB approved to look at the boys?
3. At the end of the results section, should I indicate that the satisfaction data is pending? (need
IRB approval for this part still)
4. More strongly state the implications in the conclusion?