Adapting an Electronic STI Risk Assessment Program for Use in Pediatric Primary Care

Abstract

Objectives:

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are an ongoing public health issue in adolescents. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics have and continue to recommend STI screening in at-risk adolescents, however screening and testing continues to lag behind the need. We previously designed and implemented an electronic risk assessment tool to support STI testing in our pediatric emergency department. Pediatric primary care clinics may be better positioned for STI risk assessments, as they can offer greater privacy and confidentiality, a lower stress environment, and greater opportunity for longitudinal care. STI risk assessment and testing continues to be a challenge in this setting. The goal of this work was to evaluate the usability of our electronic tool to support adaptation and implementation in pediatric primary care practices.

Methods:

We conducted qualitative interviews of pediatricians, clinic staff, and adolescents from 4 pediatric practices as part of a study whose goal is to ultimately implement STI screening in pediatric primary care. The goal of the interviews were (1) to understand contextual factors related to STI screening in primary care, which we have reported previously, and (2) to obtain feedback on our electronic platform, the questionnaire content, and their perspective on implementing it in primary care settings, which we report here. We received quantitative feedback using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS is a validated, reliable tool to measure the usability of hardware, software, websites, and applications. SUS scores range from a score of 0 to 100, with a score of 68 or higher indicating above average usability. We additionally obtained qualitative feedback via interviews and used inductive analysis to identify common themes.

Results:

We recruited 14 physicians, 9 clinic staff, and 12 adolescents. Participants rated the tool highly using the SUS, with a median score of 92.5 (threshold for average usability is 68) and an interquartile range of 82.5 to 100. Thematically, all participants perceived a need for such a screening program and indicated the format would encourage more honest responses on the topic adolescents. We used these results to modify the questionnaire prior to implementing it into participating practices.

Conclusion:

We demonstrated that our electronic STI risk assessment tool had a high level of usability and could be adapted for use in pediatric primary care.

Keywords

primary care sexually transmitted infections adolescent parents tablets electronic interviews

Introduction

Adolescents continue to bear a high burden of the sexually transmitted infections (STIs) gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), with almost half of new STIs in youth ages 15 to 24 years old.¹ Because of the significant impact of STIs on patients in this age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have and continue to recommend STI screening in at-risk adolescents.^1,2 However screening and testing continues to lag behind the need.^1-3

Numerous barriers to screening have been identified in the existing literature. Córdova et al⁴ interviewed adolescents and found adolescents widely perceived clinicians as uncomfortable and judgmental around the subject matter of STI testing. They also highlighted that maintaining confidentiality was a key aspect to foster communication around this issue, and that better communication would facilitate greater disclosure. Goyal et al surveyed primary care pediatricians on their STI screening habits⁵ and 71% reported difficulty screening discretely when the adolescent is accompanied by parents or guardians.

We previously piloted and implemented an STI risk assessment program in our pediatric emergency department (ED).^6-9 This platform utilized a novel electronic questionnaire and software platform that integrated into the electronic health record (EHR).⁹ A robust literature has already shown that adolescents prefer disclosing sensitive information such as sexual histories via digital means instead of face-to-face interviews.^10-12 We demonstrated similar findings when implementing this program in our ED, and it led to increased STI diagnoses.⁶

The St. Louis region has among the highest incidences of STIs in the United States and has a critical need for improved STI screening among adolescents.¹ Pediatric primary care clinics may be even better positioned for STI risk assessments, as they often offer greater privacy and confidentiality, a less stressful patient environment, and greater opportunity for longitudinal care. STI risk assessment and testing continues to be a challenge in this setting, however, due to infrequent sexual history taking and STI testing in many pediatric primary care practices.^5,13-17

The overall goal of our work is to adapt our ED-based STI screening program for use in pediatric primary care to improve STI screening in this setting and is guided by the implementation science framework the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.¹⁸ We previously reported on interviews we conducted with primary care pediatricians, clinic staff, as well as adolescents, and their parents who receive care in practices in our region to understand facilitators and barriers to STI screening to inform this effort.¹⁹ We asked these same interviewees to evaluate the existing ED-based electronic STI risk assessment tool to assess its usability and provide qualitative feedback to inform modifications prior to implementing in primary care, and report on those findings here.

Methods

This study is being carried out in 2 stages: (1) qualitative interviews with clinics providing feedback to adapt the tool and (2) implementation of the tool for a minimum of 12 months. Change in outcomes for STI screening will be evaluated in a future report.

We interviewed pediatricians, pediatric clinical staff from pediatric practices, and adolescents who receive care in these practices. Practices were recruited in collaboration with the Washington University Pediatric & Adolescent Ambulatory Research Consortium (WU PAARC), a network of over 30 pediatric practices in our community that participate in research studies. We obtained qualitative and quantitative feedback on the electronic platform, the questionnaire content, and their perspective on using it in the primary care setting. A significant aspect was evaluating the tool’s usability,²⁰ a crucial element for digital health interventions. The Human Research Protection Office at Washington University in St. Louis approved this study.

The Screening Tool and Workflow Integration

The current iteration of the program utilizes the Epic EHR to offer an STI risk assessment questionnaire for adolescents receiving care in our ED, regardless of the reason for their visit. While the EHR has changed from our original platform, the questionnaire content for ED patients is unchanged from what we previously published,⁹ with the only change being that the current EHR platform no longer provides an audio-component. In the ED, 15 to 21 years old patients and their families are given a brochure giving a non-specific overview of the program and discussing the need for privacy and confidentiality when the patient answers the questionnaire.^6,9

Patients using the questionnaire read a brief introduction explaining the purpose of the questionnaire—to identify if they should be offered STI testing during the visit. They were then asked a series of questions to obtain a sexual history; an integrated decision rule then provides recommendations as to whether the patient should be offered testing for gonorrhea/chlamydia and/or HIV during the visit. Recommendations are given on-screen to the patient, who can electronically “opt-in” to testing. Questionnaire responses and STI test recommendations are integrated in real-time into the EHR for the physicians and nurses to review.

Recruitment and Participation

We interviewed all physicians at 4 participating practices, up to 5 clinic staff at each practice, and a convenience sample of 5 adolescents aged 15 to 21 years and one of their parents from each practice. Data reported here were obtained during interviews that were also used to examine facilitators and barriers to STI care in each practice; those data have been reported separately.¹⁹ We did not show the electronic tool to parents as it is only intended for use by adolescents and healthcare providers, thus no parental data is in this report.

Healthcare workers were recruited via email, phone, or in-person. We identified potential eligible adolescents through the EHR by reviewing scheduled appointments for upcoming yearly preventive visits. Families were contacted by phone in advance of their appointment to screen for eligibility and to gauge interest. Written informed consent for the interviews was obtained from all participants 18 years and older, and written assent obtained for all minor participants less than 18 years of age. All participants received a $50 gift card as remuneration.

Interviews and Data Collection

Interviews were conducted from April 2020 through May 2021. In the first half of each interview we conducted semi-structured interviews to understand their beliefs around STI screening and testing; these data have been reported previously.¹⁹ All data reported here were obtained in-person during the second half of participant interviews, during which the tool was being evaluated for use in the primary care setting.

After completing the semi-structured interviews, participants were provided an overview of the existing electronic STI risk assessment tool used in our ED, given a demonstration of the platform on a tablet computer, and then allowed to trial it. Figures 1 and 2 provide tablet screenshots representative of the questions shown to patients completing the questionnaire on the tablet.

Figure 1.

Representative screenshot of adolescent survey asking sexual history.

Figure 2.

Representative screenshot of adolescent survey asking patient to “opt-in” to HIV testing when recommended by program.

After using the questionnaire on the tablet, participants were asked to complete the System Usability Scale (SUS).^21,22 The SUS is a validated, reliable instrument to measure the usability of many items, including hardware, software, websites, and applications. The SUS asks participants 10 questions using a five-point Likert-scale with responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.²³ Questions include items such as “I thought the system was easy to use” and “I found the various functions in this system were well integrated.” Participants completed the SUS by using REDCap.²⁴

After completing the SUS, all participants were then asked to provide open ended, qualitative feedback that could be used to refine the electronic tool. All interviews were conducted by study team member VD. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by a transcription service and verified for accuracy by study team member VD.

Analysis

Quantitative survey data from the SUS was managed in REDCap.²⁴ These data were analyzed using descriptive statistics using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). SUS scores range from a score of 0 (lowest usability) to 100 (highest usability); a SUS score of 68 points or higher indicates above average usability.^25-27

Open-ended responses were analyzed qualitatively. We developed a codebook using thematic coding techniques to describe users’ evaluation of the electronic screening tool and perspectives on its use in pediatric primary care. Authors CM and PC reviewed each transcript and conducted inter-rater reliability checks on all data to ensure consistent interpretations; any differences were adjudicated by author VM. These data were analyzed using NVivo (version 20).

Results

We recruited 47 participants (14 physicians, 9 clinic staff, and 12 adolescents) across 4 pediatric primary care practices. All 14 physicians participated in interviews, however, one physician did not complete the SUS. We have previously reported demographics of this group¹⁹ Briefly, 15/23 (65.2%) clinical staff were between the ages of 40 to 60, 19/23 (82.6%) were white, and 20/23 (87.0%) were female. Of the participating adolescents, the median age was 17 years, 7/12 (58.3%) were female, 9/12 (75.0%) were white, and 3/12 (25.0%) black.

System Usability Scoring

Participants rated the tool highly using the SUS, with a median score of 92.5 and an interquartile range of 82.5 to 100 across adolescents, physicians, and clinic staff. Supplemental Appendix 1 provides a summary of responses for each SUS item across adolescents, physicians, and clinic staff. Adolescents rated the tool highly. All 12 adolescent participants indicated they would like to use the system and that it was easy to use. Only 1 of the 12 adolescents indicated they would need assistance using the tool, but all 12 indicated they could learn to use it easily.

Physicians and clinic staff rated the tool highly as well, though their responses had slightly more variation than the adolescents. The 13 physicians scored the tool highly, however, 2 users indicated the system was not easy to use for them, and 3 indicated they found it complex. The 7 participating clinic staff members rated the tool higher than the physicians, with scores closer to that of the adolescents, and near universal agreement the system was easy to use.

Electronic Tool Qualitative Feedback

Overall, the participants in our study gave our tool positive feedback. We identified 3 overarching themes: (1) workflow; (2) perceived need; and (3) honest responses. We placed additional relevant quotes with disparate themes into a general category (Table 1).

Table 1.

Codebook With Themes and Definitions.

Number	Name	Description
1.1	Fitting into the workflow	Provider + staff voice discussion over the intervention’s implementational viability given time/workflow constraints. Discussion about fitting the technology into the existing workflow. ONLY includes text about how to implement the intervention and how it may or may not fit into how the nurse or physician does their job.
1.2	Perceived need	Staff and providers view the intervention as having varied perceived need among patients or need in the community. ONLY includes discussion about the need for the screening tool specifically, NOT testing, NOT discussions about sexual health
1.3	Encouraging honest responses	References to the importance of honest conversations that may include confidentiality concerns and adolescents high comfort level with technology
1.4	General feedback	Non-specific feedback about the methods

Physicians and clinic staff indicated the tool would fit well into their workflow and adolescents indicated it was easy to operate and use (Table 2, quotes 2.1-2.3). Having patients complete the questionnaire early in the visit was identified as the most important workflow criterion. Multiple participating clinics ask adolescents to complete the PHQ-9 depression questionnaire on paper during well-child checks, and the potential to integrate that or other questionnaires into this platform was of significant interest.

Table 2.

Example Quotes From Fitting into the Workflow, Perceived Need, and Promoting Honest Responses Themes.

Number	Quote
Theme: Fitting into the workflow
2.1	I think so, just because our teenagers, many of them the parents are not in the room. If they are in the room, they’re not wanting to be truthful. And I think if they were in there, this is probably maybe something that they could do along with the PHQ-9 before the doctor comes in to take that screen. I think that would be a very useful tool just so the doctor can address that as well. They have everything if they want it, and the parent’s out of the room. They’ve done it, it’s in front of them. No one else. I think it would be.—Clinic Staff #1
2.2	We would definitely have to work with the doctors with that, but I think that’s something that probably, if we did have that availability,I think that’s something as part of rooming our patients, our teens, whenever they fill those forms out prior to the doctor coming in anyway, I think this would be helpful to do that. I think it would be in the beginning of the visit when we’re rooming them.—Clinic Staff #1
2.3	I think if we can just find the right place to get it in and have the patient have enough time to answer it, I think that will be . . . Most of the time the adolescents have at least a few minutes in the room waiting for us. So as long as they can get it done in a timely fashion, where we’re not waiting for them to finish it, to start the visit, I think that’s going to be the one limiting factor, depending where we can get it in.—Providers #1
Theme: Perceived Need
2.4	I think it’s good to use. Especially with the amount of STDs that are out there for sure and I feel that, as a parent, it’s definitely. . . Sex is out there, for sure and STIs that are out there, so I definitely feel that it’s, I think it would be important for us to use for sure, with those kiddos.—Clinic Staff #2
2.5	Because STIs are on the rise. These kids are unprotected, they are aloof. I think the more screening we do and testing and education on it the better off we’re going to be and get these percentages down, because a lot of our teens have STDs. A lot, a lot. And they don’t know it. And they’re just passing it like crazy, but yeah.—Clinic Staff #1
2.6	I think it would probably get more kids to do STD screening. Right now, we usually ask our adolescents, most of us, about sexual activity, but it doesn’t always lead to a conversation necessarily of offering, I think. I know I definitely miss probably times where I’m not offering a STD screening, unless I really have concerns, but this may just catch more of that and be quicker. So then, instead of me having to delve down every question personally, I’d already have an answer to a lot of the questions I would ask, and even more detailed as well.—Providers #1
2.7	Yeah, I do think so. Because especially when you first started talking about it or first started experiencing that stuff. I think it will be awkward at first. So I think a survey or form where can you just go to your charts I feel like that be so helpful to a lot of people.—Patient #2
Theme: Encouraging honest responses
2.8	Yeah. So I think that the more you can make it seem anonymous and confidential to the teen, the more likely that you have them giving you an honest answer. And they’re a little bit more used to being honest with social media and technology and smartphones and computers than they are with humans. And so that’s where an approach like this, I think works a little bit better than say a piece of paper.—Providers #2
2.9	I would feel more comfortable if I was a teenager just doing it on a tablet than the doctor sitting there asking me questions. . . A lot of kids don’t like to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about their sex life or symptoms with an STI with anyone, even with their doctor a lot. So I think this provides a little bit more privacy and confidentiality just with the teen.—Clinic staff #1
2.10	I don’t know. Just like, doing a survey like this almost, instead of. . . Let’s say that I was, which I am not, if my mom was sitting there I probably would not want to answer honestly. So then just like making it more a private thing between me and the doctor, if my mom was there.—Patient #1
2.11	Yes, I think some people have difficulty saying things in words instead of just choosing options online or on a piece of paper, it would be better.—Patient #3

The potential for our electronic tool to support screening for STIs was of particular importance (Table 2, quotes 2.4-2.7). Multiple clinic staff commented on the high prevalence of STIs in our region and the need for improved ability to screen adolescents. One physician commented they do not routinely offer STI screening and using this tool would facilitate obtaining information they need from patients to more readily identify patients in need of STI testing.

Participants also indicated the confidential and private nature of the tool would facilitate honest disclosure of sensitive information (Table 2, quotes 2.8-2.11). They believe adolescents’ hesitance to discuss sensitive information directly with their physician, especially when a parent may be present, would be greatly ameliorated through use of this tool.

Participants provided general feedback on the tool as well; representative quotes are provided in Table 3. Clinic staff indicated the ability to obtain a patient phone number for direct notification of test results was helpful. Adolescents commented it was comfortable to use the tool, especially when compared to speaking directly to a physician. While a physician commented that the tool was easy to use, a different clinic staff member expressed concern the tool may take too long to complete.

Table 3.

Example Quotes From General Feedback.

Number	Quote
3.1	I like that they need to provide a number to call them. There are many times we do not have the child’s phone number to call with results.—Clinic Staff #2
3.2	I think it could be, it would be interesting, if we had an iPad, then we just run into the room with it, give it to the patient, they would probably feel comfortable using it. But then once they start to realize it’s a questionnaire about sexual history, they might feel maybe more uneasy to continue with it. Because it seemed like it was a little long.—Clinic Staff #3
3.3	I think this style is easy to use.—Providers #3
3.4	Yeah, it’s more approachable towards younger audiences.—Patient #4
3.5	I feel like that survey does a pretty good job making it more comfortable. Patient #5
3.6	Yeah, It’s definitely easier, especially for a teenager to talk. . . not speak it out loud, but like, at least, do it electronically.—Patient #6
3.7	This system was very easy considering a lot of teens now use technology so much this system was easy and quick to operate.—Patient #7

Questionnaire and Process Adaptations

We used the initial feedback from the participants to make modifications to the program prior to implementation in pediatric practices. We changed the content of the questionnaire to reflect the change of context from the ED to the primary care setting (Supplemental Appendix 2). This primarily involved modifying the introduction and the questions related to test recommendations. We made very few changes to individual questions, however we did remove several “introductory” questions that the pediatricians indicated were not needed in their environment. This included removing questions related to patient’s self-reported grade level, access to healthcare, race, and ethnicity. The program was implemented in our first participating practice in November 2021. After the first few months of use, physicians requested we review the questionnaire to identify if we could further reduce its length. After an in-person review, we further shortened the introduction.

Integration of the questionnaire into primary care required process adaptations as well. Participating pediatricians currently offer the questionnaire to 15 to 21 years old patients presenting for their yearly well-child checks. We created best practice advisories (BPAs), alerts in the EHR for clinicians, and staff, to notify office staff when a patient is eligible for the questionnaire. Patients and families are given a brochure, modeled off our ED brochure, describing the general purpose of the electronic screening without disclosing the topic. Adolescents are given privacy in a patient room to complete the questionnaire. After completion, a BPA alerts the clinician. The BPA provides a link to review questionnaire responses and STI testing recommendations, and prompts clinicians to order testing when recommended. Questionnaire responses do not appear in the online patient portal, preserving patient confidentiality even should a parent have proxy access to review their child’s information.

Discussion

STI screening in for adolescents continues to lag behind the need and recommendations. Providing this care for adolescents faces barriers compared to adults due to challenges obtaining this care independently and confidentially. We demonstrated that an STI screening tool developed for use in a pediatric ED has a high degree of acceptability by primary care pediatricians and adolescents.

Based on results of the SUS, adolescents, pediatricians, and clinic staff indicated our electronic platform was exceptionally easy to use, scoring well above the “average” usability score of 68, even before adaptations were made for their environment. This is reflective of the significant effort we spent originally developing the program, which included interviews of adolescents to review the questionnaire, and the qualitative feedback provided by adolescents in our ED using it.⁷ A consistent theme emerged among all interviewees that this method would encourage honest responses from adolescents and facilitate this difficult conversation. This also mirrors our findings from the ED that adolescents prefer to disclose such sensitive information via electronic questionnaires instead of face-to-face interviews.

While some physicians expressed concern over the length of the ED version of the questionnaire and how to best integrate it into their workflow, they were positive about its potential use in their practices and collaborative in making modifications to the questionnaire for use in their setting. The original ED version of the questionnaire was completed in a median of 8.3 min.⁷ With a shortened introduction and fewer questions, and completion in the calmer and more controlled primary care environment, we anticipate a shorter completion time.

Our initial work exploring facilitators and barriers to STI screening in this setting,¹⁹ as well the work of others,^4,5 highlights the need for improved ways for adolescents and pediatricians to communicate STI care. Adolescents and clinicians emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality when discussing STIs, and our tool offers 1 such opportunity. While confidential delivery of STI care to adolescent minors is still legally protected in all states,³ providing this care presents many challenges. Our tool provides an efficient and confidential way to discretely screen adolescents, and we found adolescents as well as clinicians were supportive of this approach.

This method is not the only electronic/web-based method to obtain this information from adolescents. Stalgaitis and Glick performed a systematic review of web-based diaries used to identified risky sexual behaviors.¹² The studies they identified included only adults, and were implemented for a limited time. While a real-time diary would reduce the potential for recall bias, it is more time-intensive and could raise privacy concerns with information being stored and transmitted online. These concerns are mitigated by our system, which is integrated into the EHR. Additionally, our patient responses are not viewable in the EHR patient portal, which is important for confidentiality as many parents can access adolescents’ information in the portal. Karas et al described implementation of a clinical decision support tool for a pediatric primary care network to increase STI testing during well-child checks, similar to the goal of our program.²⁸ Their effort differed from ours as it was only for adolescent females, and utilized documentation and test results in the EHR to alert clinicians instead of patient questionnaires to generate STI testing alerts. They did see a doubling of chlamydia testing in their target population, demonstrating an alternative way to leverage EHR alerts for similar goals. Wood et al similarly pursued increased chlamydia screening for adolescent females in a pediatric primary setting through EHR alerts, with universal obtaining of urine specimens but combined it with universal collection of urine specimens and observed an increase in chlamydia testing.²⁹ Wayal et al used a web-based survey to obtain STI risk information from adolescent and adults; their program was implemented at sexual health clinics in England, a higher risk setting and population than our effort, however did find high acceptability of their intervention and potential to identify STI risk.³⁰ A 2016 systematic review of STI screening in clinic settings identified 42 interventions to increase STI screening, however none appeared to use EHR-integrated questionnaires and alerts, and few included men.³¹ Our program appears to be unique with our focus on pediatric primary care practices, including all female and male patients, and the use of an EHR integrated questionnaire, however elements such as universal urine collection and enhanced use of existing data from the EHR could improve our process.

We have implemented our tool with the updated questionnaire in a second practice, and will soon be implementing in a third practice. We are monitoring STI testing practices and continue to obtain feedback from physicians to continue to improve the tool. Our integration into their existing workflows and the overall use of the tool will be described in a future report describing our implementation outcomes.

Limitations of our work including recruiting a convenience sample of patients from a subset of patients in our region. As such participating adolescents may not have been reflective of others in the region or nationally. Additionally, while participants rated our tool highly using the SUS, this evaluative mechanism has limitations. Broekhuis et al²⁰ compared the usability of the SUS compared to other benchmarking instruments and found that think-aloud protocols were a more effective tool and recommended against using the SUS as the sole evaluative method. While we did not have a formal think-aloud protocol, participants were able to provide qualitative feedback on the tool and their comments were reflective of their overall positive view of our tool.

Conclusion

We demonstrated that our electronic STI risk assessment tool, originally developed for use in a pediatric ED, had high usability and appeal in the pediatric primary care setting. With minor modifications, we were able to adapt the tool for use in primary care settings and subsequently implemented an STI screening program in pursuit of evaluating its clinical effectiveness in this new patient environment.

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-2-jpc-10.1177_21501319231172900 – Supplemental material for Adapting an Electronic STI Risk Assessment Program for Use in Pediatric Primary Care

Supplemental material, sj-doc-2-jpc-10.1177_21501319231172900 for Adapting an Electronic STI Risk Assessment Program for Use in Pediatric Primary Care by Fahd A. Ahmad, Pamela Chan, Collin McGovern, Viani Dickey, Randi Foraker and Virginia McKay in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319231172900 – Supplemental material for Adapting an Electronic STI Risk Assessment Program for Use in Pediatric Primary Care

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319231172900 for Adapting an Electronic STI Risk Assessment Program for Use in Pediatric Primary Care by Fahd A. Ahmad, Pamela Chan, Collin McGovern, Viani Dickey, Randi Foraker and Virginia McKay in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the adolescent patients and their parents, as well as physicians and clinic staff members who participated in this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18 HS026704)

ORCID iDs

Fahd A. Ahmad

Virginia McKay

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2019. Department of Health and Human Services; 2021.

American Academy of Pediatrics. Emergency information forms and emergency preparedness for children with special health care needs. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):829-837. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-0186

Workowski

Bachmann

Chan

, et al. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2021;70(4):1-187. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7004a1

Córdova

Lua

Ovadje

, et al. Adolescent experiences of clinician-patient HIV/STI communication in primary care. Health Commun. 2018;33(9):1177-1183.

Goyal

Dowshen

Mehta

Hayes

Lee

Mistry

RD.

Pediatric primary care provider practices, knowledge, and attitudes of human immunodeficiency virus screening among adolescents. J Pediatr. 2013;163(6):1711-1715.e6.

Ahmad

Fischer

, et al. Impact of risk-based sexually transmitted infection screening in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2022;29:879-889.

Ahmad

Jeffe

Plax

, et al. Computerized self-interviews improve Chlamydia and gonorrhea testing among youth in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;64(4): 376-384. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.01.031

Ahmad

Jeffe

Plax

, et al. Characteristics of youth agreeing to electronic sexually transmitted infection risk assessment in the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2018; 35:46-51. doi:10.1136/emermed-2016-206199

Ahmad

Payne

PRO

Lackey

, et al. Using REDCap and Apple ResearchKit to integrate patient questionnaires and clinical decision support into the electronic health record to improve sexually transmitted infection testing in the emergency department. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(2): 265-273. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz182

10.

Hensel

Fortenberry

Harezlak

Craig

The feasibility of cell phone based electronic diaries for STI/HIV research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:75. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-75

11.

Roth

Hensel

Fortenberry

Garfein

Gunn

Wiehe

SE.

Feasibility and acceptability of cell phone diaries to measure HIV risk behavior among female sex workers. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(12):2314-2324.

12.

Stalgaitis

Glick

SN.

The use of web-based diaries in sexual risk behaviour research: a systematic review. Sex Transm Infect. 2014;90(5):374-381.

13.

Goyal

Witt

Hayes

Zaoutis

Gerber

JS.

Clinician adherence to recommendations for screening of adolescents for sexual activity and sexually transmitted infection/human immunodeficiency virus. J Pediatr. 2014;165(2):343-347. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.04.009

14.

Torkko

Gershman

Crane

Hamman

Barón

Testing for Chlamydia and sexual history taking in adolescent females: results from a statewide survey of Colorado primary care providers. Pediatrics. 2000;106(3):e32-e32. doi:10.1542/peds.106.3.e32

15.

Kufeji

Slack

Cassell

Pugh

Hayward

Who is being tested for genital chlamydia in primary care?

Sex Transm Infect. 2003;79(3):234-236. doi:10.1136/sti.79.3.234

16.

Murphy

Mitchell

Vermund

Futterman

Factors associated with HIV testing among HIV-Positive and HIV-Negative high-risk adolescents: the REACH study. Reaching for excellence in adolescent care and health. Pediatrics. 2002;110(3):e36-e36. doi:10.1542/peds.110.3.e36

17.

Goodman

Tipton

Hecht

Chesney

MA.

Perseverance pays off: health care providers’ impact on HIV testing decisions by adolescent females. Pediatrics. 1994;94(6 Pt 1):878-882.

18.

Damschroder

Aron

Keith

Kirsh

Alexander

Lowery

JC.

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009; 4(1):50.

19.

Ahmad

Dickey

Tetteh

Foraker

McKay

VR.

The use of the consolidated framework for implementation research to understand facilitators and barriers to sexually transmitted infection screening in primary care. Sex Transm Dis. 2022; 49(9):610-615. doi:10.1097/olq.0000000000001656

20.

Broekhuis

van Velsen

Hermens

Assessing usability of eHealth technology: a comparison of usability benchmarking instruments. Int J Med Inform. 2019;128:24-31.

21.

Bangor

Kortum

Miller

JT.

An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2008; 24(6):574-594.

22.

Brooke

SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry. 1996;189(194):4-7.

23.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. System Usability Scale (SUS). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed May 1, 2018. https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.html

24.

Harris

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

JG.

Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.

25.

Brooke

SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud. 2013;8(2):29-40.

26.

Lewis

JR.

The system usability scale: past, present, and future. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2018;34(7):577-590.

27.

U.S. General Services Administration. System Usability Scale (SUS). 2006. Accessed April 19, 2022. https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.html

28.

Karas

Sondike

Fitzgibbon

Redding

Brown

Using a clinical decision support tool to increase Chlamydia screening across a large primary care pediatric network. Clin Pediatr. 2018;57(14):1638-1641. doi:10.1177/0009922818803397

29.

Wood

McGeary

Wilson

, et al. Effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention to improve rates of routine Chlamydia trachomatis screening in female adolescents seeking primary preventive care. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2019;32(1):32-38. doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2018.10.004.

30.

Wayal

Reid

Blomquist

Weatherburn

Mercer

Hughes

The acceptability and feasibility of implementing a bio-behavioral enhanced surveillance tool for sexually transmitted infections in England: mixed-methods Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2018;4(2):e52. doi:10.2196/publichealth.9010.

31.

Taylor

Frasure-Williams

Burnett

Park

IU.

Interventions to improve sexually transmitted disease screening in clinic-based settings. Sex Transm Dis. 2016;43:S28-S41.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB

0.03 MB