Cited by 128Reproductive tract infections researchHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health

Effect of a brief video intervention on incident infection among patients attending sexually transmitted disease clinics.

Open access
Warner, Lee, Klausner, Jeffrey D, Rietmeijer, Cornelis A, Malotte, C. Kevin, O'Donnell, Lydia, Margolis, Andrew D, Greenwood, Gregory L, Richardson, Doug +4 more·2008·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention remains a public health priority. Simple, practical interventions to reduce STD incidence that can be easily and inexpensively administered in high-volume clinical settings are needed. We evaluated whether a brief video, which contained STD prevention messages targeted to all patients in the waiting room, reduced acquisition of new infections after that clinic visit. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a controlled trial among patients attending three publicly funded STD clinics (one in each of three US cities) from December 2003 to August 2005, all patients (n = 38,635) were systematically assigned to either a theory-based 23-min video depicting couples overcoming barriers to safer sexual behaviors, or the standard waiting room environment. Condition assignment alternated every 4 wk and was determined by which condition (intervention or control) was in place in the clinic waiting room during the patient's first visit within the study period. An intent-to-treat analysis was used to compare STD incidence between intervention and control patients. The primary endpoint was time to diagnosis of incident laboratory-confirmed infections (gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, syphilis, and HIV), as identified through review of medical records and county STD surveillance registries. During 14.8 mo (average) of follow-up, 2,042 patients (5.3%) were diagnosed with incident STD (4.9%, intervention condition; 5.7%, control condition). In survival analysis, patients assigned to the intervention condition had significantly fewer STDs compared with the control condition (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Showing a brief video in STD clinic waiting rooms reduced new infections nearly 10% overall in three clinics. This simple, low-intensity intervention may be appropriate for adoption by clinics that serve similar patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00137670).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050135

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Group-based strategies have been effective in reducing the occurrence of STIs among persons at risk, including those attending STD clinics.

    “Group-based strategies have been effective in reducing the occurrence of STIs among persons at risk, including those attending STD clinics (9).”

    From Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [9]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Warner, L., Klausner, J. D., Rietmeijer, C. A., Malotte, C. K., O'Donnell, L., Margolis, A. D., Greenwood, G. L., Richardson, D., Vrungos, S., O'Donnell, C. R., Borkowf, C. B., & for the Safe in the City Study Group
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • San Francisco Department of Public Health (US)
  • Denver Public Health (US)
  • California State University, Long Beach (US)
  • Education Development Center (US)
Corresponding author
Warner, Lee
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2008-06-24
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
e135
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2142132129
Cited by
128
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 19
FWCI
7.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Keywords
STD prevention, video-based intervention, waiting room intervention, STD clinic patients, safer sex, couples, gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, syphilis, HIV, low-intensity intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Audiovisual Aids, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Time Factors, Video Recording, Incidence, Clinical Laboratory Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review