Sally B Rose

Dr. Sally B Rose


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 November 2011 in Journal of Women's Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SRSally B Rose
Sally B Rose
ACAnnette J. Cooper
Annette J. Cooper
NBNaomi K. Baker
Naomi K. Baker
BLBeverley Lawton
Beverley Lawton
Aims: Use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods can reduce rates of unplanned pregnancy and abortion, but for a range of reasons, these methods are underused by young women. A third of women seeking abortion return for a subsequent abortion during their reproductive years and could benefit from using effective long-acting methods. We aimed to explore the attitudes of women seeking abortion toward contraception, with a focus on long-acting methods. Methods: Thirty women aged 16–25 (of Maori, Pacific Island, and European ethnicities) were recruited at a public hospital abortion clinic to participate in a semistructured interview. Participants were asked about past use of contraception, their understanding of pregnancy risk, reasons for method choice; and views on long-acting methods. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: There was a lack of prior knowledge about LARC methods (particularly intrauterine devices [IUD] and implants). Once information was provided, these methods were generally viewed favorably. Cost was a key factor in contraceptive choice, prohibiting choice of the Mirena ® levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or an implant for many women. Other important factors that determined method use and choice were familiarity with methods, whether or not they contained hormones, likely effect on periods, and other side effects. Conclusions: Access issues relating to LARC methods (including cost and awareness) need to be urgently addressed. When discussing postabortion contraceptive options, women would benefit from simple explanations about LARC: their appropriateness for women of all reproductive ages, reversible nature, mechanisms of action, impact on menstruation, and other potential side effects.

1 October 2010 in Contraception
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SRSally B Rose
Sally B Rose
BLBeverley A. Lawton
Beverley A. Lawton
SBSelina A. Brown
Selina A. Brown

4 October 2011 in Journal of School Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SRSally B Rose
Sally B Rose
TLTolotea Lanumata
Tolotea Lanumata
BLBeverley A. Lawton
Beverley A. Lawton

25 January 2008
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SRSally B Rose
Sally B Rose
CEC Raina Elley
C Raina Elley
BLBeverley Lawton
Beverley Lawton
ADAnthony C Dowell
Anthony C Dowell


28 July 2017 in BMC Infectious Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SRSally B Rose
Sally B Rose
GGGarrett Marie Garrett
Garrett Marie Garrett
JSJames Stanley
James Stanley
SPSusan R. H. Pullon
Susan R. H. Pullon
Testing for reinfection at 3 to 6 months following treatment for Chlamydia Trachomatis or Neisseria gonorrhoea is recommended in best practice sexual health management guidelines. This study aimed to describe rates of retesting and repeat positivity following diagnosis of chlamydia or gonorrhoea in a defined geographic region of New Zealand. Retrospective cohort study in Wellington, New Zealand involving analysis of laboratory data for chlamydia and gonorrhoea tests performed in primary care and sexual health clinics (July 2012–July 2015). Outcome measures: rate of retesting and rate of repeat positivity 6 weeks to 6 months after a positive result (index event). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to plot time from first index event to retest. Logistic regression modelling was used to determine the odds of retesting and repeat positivity between 6 weeks and 6 months of follow-up, adjusting for potential confounders (age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation). Overall 29.4% (1919/6530) of the cohort was retested between 6 weeks and 6 months, with 18% (347/1919) of those retested returning positive results. Lower odds of retesting were observed for males (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.34–0.48), and individuals of NZ Maori (OR 0.72, 0.61–0.85) and Pacific ethnicities (OR 0.49, 0.39–0.62, reference European). Factors associated with higher odds of repeat positivity on retesting included male gender (OR 2.0, 1.14–2.82), age 15–19 years (OR 1.78, 1.32–2.41, reference 20–24 years), chlamydia/gonorrhoea co-infection (OR 2.39, 1.32–4.35, reference chlamydia only), Maori (OR 1.6, 1.18–2.17) and Pacific ethnicities (OR 1.88, 1.22–2.9, reference European). We observed low adherence to STI retesting guidelines, and marked gender and ethnic disparities in rates of retesting and repeat positivity. Low retesting rates are suggestive of low levels of awareness of this aspect of patient management, and an absence of a systematic approach to retesting. High rates of repeat positivity reinforce the importance of advising patients about reducing their risk of reinfection, including notification and treatment of all recent sexual partners. Greater priority needs to be placed on increasing retesting and reducing rates of reinfection, with strategies implemented to improve these important aspects of patient care and population STI control.