Social and psychological factors in the distribution of STD in male clinic attenders. I Demographic and social factors.

Abstract

SUMMARYWe describe three related studies of possible aetiological risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in men attending an STD clinic. In this paper we present the results for a variety of social and demographic variables traditionally associated with STD. In contrast to the results in the next two papers, these were largely negative. Occurrence rates of overall STD or of hepatitis, syphilis, gonorrhoea, or non-specific urethritis (NSU) had no aetiologically relevant association with age, nationality, marital status, social class, occupation, non-sexual social contact, drug abuse, or aggressive attitudes and behaviour. Gonorrhoea, however, was the only STD which correlated with alcohol abuse and with eating out rather than at home. We conclude that, with the possible exception of gonorrhoea, social factors contribute little to the distribution of STD risk within the study population.

Sexually transmitted diseases in transient British forces in the tropics.

“…Schofield showed that STD amongst seamen is most commonly acquired in their home country rather than when travelling.5 Fulford et al found neither prolonged residence nor employment in the tropics to be associated with an increased risk of STD. 6 Our findings are at variance with these reports which were based on clinic attenders in the United Kingdom.…”

A prospective study of the psychological impact on patients with a first episode of genital herpes.

“…All three groups showed a decrease in Illness Concern, but this decrease was only significantly different in the herpes group (p < 0-0001 comparing visits 1 and 2). <McNemar's test showed a change in the pro-E g---Primary HSV portion of GHQ cases with 73% who were 14 --o--GUM Controls initially classified as "cases" being classified -DermatologY as "noncases" three months later (p < 0.0001). The same pattern was observed 12 _ | amongst anxiety "cases" with 55% of those classified as "cases", at visit one becoming '"noncases" at visit two (p = 0-006 (50%) at visit one vs 11/26 (31%) at visit two).…”