• Austin M Williams, Kristen Kreisel, and Harrell W Chesson.
• Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: nzv5@cdc.gov.
• Am J Prev Med. 2019 Mar 1; 56 (3): 352358352-358.

IntroductionThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allocates funds annually to jurisdictions nationwide for sexually transmitted infection prevention activities. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of federal sexually transmitted infection prevention funding for reducing rates of reported sexually transmitted infections.MethodsIn 2017-2018, finite distributed lag regression models were estimated to assess the impact of sexually transmitted infection prevention funding (in 2016 dollars per capita) on reported chlamydia rates from 2000 to 2016 and reported gonorrhea rates from 1981 to 2016. Including lagged funding measures allowed for assessing the impact of funding over time. Controls for state-level socioeconomic factors, such as poverty rates, were included.ResultsResults from the main model indicate that a 1% increase in annual funding would cumulatively decrease chlamydia and gonorrhea rates by 0.17% (p<0.10) and 0.33% (p<0.05), respectively. Results were similar when stratified by sex, with significant decreases in rates of reported chlamydia and gonorrhea in males of 0.33% and 0.34% (both p<0.05) respectively, and in rates of reported gonorrhea in females of 0.32% (p<0.05). The results were generally consistent across alternative model specifications and other robustness tests.ConclusionsThe significant inverse associations between federal sexually transmitted infection prevention funding and rates of reported chlamydia and gonorrhea suggest that federally funded sexually transmitted infection prevention activities have a discernable effect on reducing the burden of sexually transmitted infections. The reported sexually transmitted infection rate in a given year depends more on prevention funding in previous years than on prevention funding in the current year, demonstrating the importance of accounting for lagged funding effects.Published by Elsevier Inc.

18 keywords...

hide…