Self-Collected Versus Health Professional-Collected Genital Swabs to Identify The Prevalence of Group B Streptococcus: A Comparison of Patient Preference and Efficacy

Typeset version

 

TY  - JOUR
  - Arya, A, Cryan, B, O'Sullivan, K, Greene, RA, Higgins, JR
  - 2008
  - July
  - European Journal of Obstetrics ; Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
  - Self-Collected Versus Health Professional-Collected Genital Swabs to Identify The Prevalence of Group B Streptococcus: A Comparison of Patient Preference and Efficacy
  - Validated
  - ()
  - 139
  - 1
  - 43
  - 45
  - Objective: This study aims to determine the prevalence of genital tract group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization in a cohort of pregnant Irish women and to compare patient preference and efficacy of self-collected versus health professional-collected swabs.. Study design: In this prospective cohort study, 600 pregnant women attending public and private antenatal clinics at the Unified Maternity Services, Cork were included. At 35-37 weeks of pregnancy, these women self-collected an ano-vaginal swab and a health professional-collected a second swab on same clinic visit. The women filled a questionnaire to indicate their preferences. Statistical analysis was performed on SPSS Version 13.. Result: The cumulative prevalence of maternal GBS colonization was 11.7% (95% CI, 9.3-14.6). The sensitivity of the self-collected swab was 84.3% (95% CI, 73.2-91.5) and that of health professional-collected swab was 94.3% (95% CI, 85.3-98.2). While good agreement in efficacy was found between health professional and patient-collected swabs (Kappa = 0.87, p < 0.001, 97.5% measure of concordance), only 28.5% women preferred self-collection, while 43.2% preferred a health professional to collect the swab and 28.3% had no preference.. Conclusion: In our study the concordance between health professional and self-collected swab was excellent. However, pregnant women mainly prefer a health professional to collect their ano-vaginal swabs. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved..
  - DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.12.005
DA  - 2008/07
ER  - 
@article{V723427,
   = {Arya,  A and  Cryan,  B and  O'Sullivan,  K and  Greene,  RA and  Higgins,  JR },
   = {2008},
   = {July},
   = {European Journal of Obstetrics ; Gynecology and Reproductive Biology},
   = {Self-Collected Versus Health Professional-Collected Genital Swabs to Identify The Prevalence of Group B Streptococcus: A Comparison of Patient Preference and Efficacy},
   = {Validated},
   = {()},
   = {139},
   = {1},
  pages = {43--45},
   = {{Objective: This study aims to determine the prevalence of genital tract group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization in a cohort of pregnant Irish women and to compare patient preference and efficacy of self-collected versus health professional-collected swabs.. Study design: In this prospective cohort study, 600 pregnant women attending public and private antenatal clinics at the Unified Maternity Services, Cork were included. At 35-37 weeks of pregnancy, these women self-collected an ano-vaginal swab and a health professional-collected a second swab on same clinic visit. The women filled a questionnaire to indicate their preferences. Statistical analysis was performed on SPSS Version 13.. Result: The cumulative prevalence of maternal GBS colonization was 11.7% (95% CI, 9.3-14.6). The sensitivity of the self-collected swab was 84.3% (95% CI, 73.2-91.5) and that of health professional-collected swab was 94.3% (95% CI, 85.3-98.2). While good agreement in efficacy was found between health professional and patient-collected swabs (Kappa = 0.87, p < 0.001, 97.5% measure of concordance), only 28.5% women preferred self-collection, while 43.2% preferred a health professional to collect the swab and 28.3% had no preference.. Conclusion: In our study the concordance between health professional and self-collected swab was excellent. However, pregnant women mainly prefer a health professional to collect their ano-vaginal swabs. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved..}},
   = {DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.12.005},
  source = {IRIS}
}
AUTHORSArya, A, Cryan, B, O'Sullivan, K, Greene, RA, Higgins, JR
YEAR2008
MONTHJuly
JOURNAL_CODEEuropean Journal of Obstetrics ; Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
TITLESelf-Collected Versus Health Professional-Collected Genital Swabs to Identify The Prevalence of Group B Streptococcus: A Comparison of Patient Preference and Efficacy
STATUSValidated
TIMES_CITED()
SEARCH_KEYWORD
VOLUME139
ISSUE1
START_PAGE43
END_PAGE45
ABSTRACTObjective: This study aims to determine the prevalence of genital tract group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization in a cohort of pregnant Irish women and to compare patient preference and efficacy of self-collected versus health professional-collected swabs.. Study design: In this prospective cohort study, 600 pregnant women attending public and private antenatal clinics at the Unified Maternity Services, Cork were included. At 35-37 weeks of pregnancy, these women self-collected an ano-vaginal swab and a health professional-collected a second swab on same clinic visit. The women filled a questionnaire to indicate their preferences. Statistical analysis was performed on SPSS Version 13.. Result: The cumulative prevalence of maternal GBS colonization was 11.7% (95% CI, 9.3-14.6). The sensitivity of the self-collected swab was 84.3% (95% CI, 73.2-91.5) and that of health professional-collected swab was 94.3% (95% CI, 85.3-98.2). While good agreement in efficacy was found between health professional and patient-collected swabs (Kappa = 0.87, p < 0.001, 97.5% measure of concordance), only 28.5% women preferred self-collection, while 43.2% preferred a health professional to collect the swab and 28.3% had no preference.. Conclusion: In our study the concordance between health professional and self-collected swab was excellent. However, pregnant women mainly prefer a health professional to collect their ano-vaginal swabs. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved..
PUBLISHER_LOCATION
ISBN_ISSN
EDITION
URL
DOI_LINKDOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.12.005
FUNDING_BODY
GRANT_DETAILS