Exploring attitudes and practices of General Practice staff towards offers of opportunistic screening for chlamydia: a UK survey

Chlamydia-related knowledge, opinion to opportunistic testing, and practices of providers among different sexually transmitted infections related departments in hospitals in Shenzhen city, China

BACKGROUND

Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infection could lead to seriously adverse outcomes if left untreated. This study aimed to determine CT-related knowledge, opinion to testing, and practices of providers among different sexually transmitted infections (STI) related departments in hospitals in Shenzhen city, China, and also to explore the differences in these responses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1st April 2018 to 15th April 2018, a cross-sectional study was conducted in Shenzhen and 64 of 66 hospitals agreed to participate in this study. In the hospital sites, all the providers from the department of obstetrics and gynecology, department of dermatology and venereology, department of urology, and anorectal surgical department were recruited. A structured paper-based questionnaire was used to obtain data on CT-related information.

RESULTS

A total of 355 providers from 64 hospitals participated in the current study. Compared to providers from the department of dermatology and venereology, those from the department of obstetrics and gynecology (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.16-0.62), department of urology (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.65), and anorectal surgical department (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.71) were less likely to identify that "Be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and has negative STI test results." is an appropriate way for a sexually active person to reduce risk of getting CT. Also, those from the department of obstetrics and gynecology (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.87) were less likely to identify that "Use latex condoms the right way every time you have sex" is another appropriate way. A high proportion of providers agreed that all sexually active patients attending to their department should be screened regularly (77.1%), and they are willing to offer opportunistic CT screening (96.0%). Only 11.4% of respondents correctly identified that the appropriate time frame of the CT retesting is three months.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers among STI-related departments in hospitals showed a very high willingness to offer opportunistic CT screening. However, this study showed important gaps in providers' knowledge and practices in China, targeted training in CT-related knowledge and practice is urgently needed.

Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review

Background

Chlamydia is a major public health concern, with high economic and social costs. In 2016, there were over 200,000 chlamydia diagnoses made in England. The highest prevalence rates are found among young people. Although annual testing for sexually active young people is recommended, many do not receive testing. General practice is one ideal setting for testing, yet attempts to increase testing in this setting have been disappointing. The Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) may help improve understanding of the underpinnings of chlamydia testing. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing for young people and primary care practitioners in general practice and (2) map facilitators and barriers onto the COM-B model.

Methods

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies published after 2000 were included. Seven databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed publications which examined barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data (i.e., participant quotations, theme descriptions, and survey results) regarding study design and key findings were extracted. The data was first analysed using thematic analysis, following this, the resultant factors were mapped onto the COM-B model components. All findings are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

Four hundred eleven papers were identified; 39 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., time constraints), and service level (e.g., practice nurses). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: physical capability (e.g., practice nurse involvement), psychological capability (e.g.: lack of knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding perceived risk), automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment and shame), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), social opportunity (e.g., stigma).

Conclusions

This systematic review provides a synthesis of the literature which acknowledges factors across multiple levels and components. The COM-B model provided the framework for understanding the complexity of chlamydia testing behaviour. While we cannot at this juncture state which component represents the most salient influence on chlamydia testing, across all three levels, multiple barriers and facilitators were identified relating psychological capability and physical and social opportunity. Implementation should focus on (1) normalisation, (2) communication, (3) infection-specific information, and (4) mode of testing. In order to increase chlamydia testing in general practice, a multifaceted theory- and evidence-based approach is needed.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42016041786

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0821-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Exploring why a complex intervention piloted in general practices did not result in an increase in chlamydia screening and diagnosis: a qualitative evaluation using the fidelity of implementation model

BACKGROUND

Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) is the most commonly diagnosed sexually transmitted infection (STI) in England; approximately 70% of diagnoses are in sexually active young adults aged under 25. To facilitate opportunistic chlamydia screening in general practice, a complex intervention, based on a previously successful Chlamydia Intervention Randomised Trial (CIRT), was piloted in England. The modified intervention (3Cs and HIV) aimed to encourage general practice staff to routinely offer chlamydia testing to all 15-24 year olds regardless of the type of consultation. However, when the 3Cs (chlamydia screening, signposting to contraceptive services, free condoms) and HIV was offered to a large number of general practitioner (GP) surgeries across England, chlamydia screening was not significantly increased. This qualitative evaluation addresses the following aims: a) Explore why the modified intervention did not increase screening across all general practices. b) Suggest recommendations for future intervention implementation.

METHODS

Phone interviews were carried out with 26 practice staff, at least 5 months after their initial educational workshop, exploring their opinions on the workshop and intervention implementation in the real world setting. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed and further examined using the fidelity of implementation model.

RESULTS

Participants who attended had a positive attitude towards the workshops, but attendee numbers were low. Often, the intervention content, as detailed in the educational workshops, was not adhered to: practice staff were unaware of any on-going trainer support; computer prompts were only added to the female contraception template; patients were not encouraged to complete the test immediately; complete chlamydia kits were not always readily available to the clinicians; and videos and posters were not utilised. Staff reported that financial incentives, themselves, were not a motivator; competing priorities and time were identified as major barriers.

CONCLUSION

Not adhering to the exact intervention model may explain the lack of significant increases in chlamydia screening. To increase fidelity of implementation outside of Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) conditions, and consequently, improve likelihood of increased screening, future public health interventions in general practices need to have: more specific action planning within the educational workshop; computer prompts added to systems and used; all staff attending the workshop; and on-going practice staff support with feedback of progress on screening and diagnosis rates fed back to all staff.

Narrative review of the barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice

As the cornerstone of Australian primary health care, general practice is a setting well suited for regular chlamydia testing but testing rates remain low. This review examines the barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. Six databases--Medline, PubMed, Meditext, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science--were used to identify peer-reviewed publications that addressed barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice using the following terms: 'chlamydia test*', 'STI test*' 'general practice', 'primary care', 'family medicine', 'barriers', 'facilitators' and 'enablers' from 1997 until November 2013. Data about the study design and key findings were extracted from the publications. A framework method was used to manage the data and organise publications into three categories -patient, general practitioner, and general practice. Key findings were then classified as a barrier or facilitator. Sixty-nine publications were included, with 41 quantitative studies, 17 qualitative studies, and 11 using mixed methods. Common barriers identified in all three groups included a lack of knowledge, awareness or training, demands on time and workload, and the social context of testing. Facilitators included the normalisation of testing, the use of nurses and other practice staff, education and incentives. Numerous barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice have been identified. While the barriers are well studied, many of the facilitators are not as well researched, and highlight areas for further study.

Improving chlamydia knowledge should lead to increased chlamydia testing among Australian general practitioners: a cross-sectional study of chlamydia testing uptake in general practice

Background

Female general practitioners (GPs) have higher chlamydia testing rates than male GPs, yet it is unclear whether this is due to lack of knowledge among male GPs or because female GPs consult and test more female patients.

Methods

GPs completed a survey about their demographic details and knowledge about genital chlamydia. Chlamydia testing and consultation data for patients aged 16-29 years were extracted from the medical records software for each GP and linked to their survey responses. Chi-square tests were used to determine differences in a GP’s knowledge and demographics. Two multivariable models that adjusted for the gender of the patient were used to investigate associations between a GP and their chlamydia testing rates ― Model 1 included GPs’ characteristics such as age and gender, Model 2 excluded these characteristics to specifically examine any associations with knowledge.

Results

Female GPs were more likely than male GPs to know when to re-test a patient after a negative chlamydia test (18.8% versus 9.7%, p = 0.01), the correct symptoms suggestive of PID (80.5% versus 67.8%, p = 0.01) and the correct tests for diagnosing PID (57.1% versus 42.6%, p = 0.01). Female GPs tested 6.5% of patients, while male GPs tested 2.2% (p < 0.01). Model 1 found factors associated with chlamydia testing were being a female GP (OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.9, 3.3) and working in a metropolitan clinic (OR = 3.2; 95% CI: 2.4, 4.3). Model 2 showed that chlamydia testing increased as knowledge of testing guidelines improved (3-5 correct answers – AOR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0, 4.2; 6+ correct answers – AOR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.2).

Conclusions

Higher rates of chlamydia testing are strongly associated with GPs who are female, based in a metropolitan clinic and among those with more knowledge of the recommended guidelines. Improving chlamydia knowledge among male GPs may increase chlamydia testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0584-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The chlamydia knowledge, awareness and testing practices of Australian general practitioners and practice nurses: survey findings from the Australian chlamydia control effectiveness pilot (ACCEPt)

Background

ACCEPt, a large cluster randomized control trial, aims to determine if annual testing for 16 to 29 year olds in general practice can reduce chlamydia prevalence. ACCEPt is the first trial investigating the potential role of practice nurses (PN) in chlamydia testing. To inform the design of the ACCEPt intervention, we aimed to determine the chlamydia knowledge, attitudes, and testing practices of participating general practitioners (GPs) and PNs.

Methods

GPs and PNs from 143 clinics recruited from 52 areas in 4 Australian states were asked to complete a survey at time of recruitment. Responses of PNs and GPs were compared using conditional logistic regression to account for possible intra cluster correlation within clinics.

Results

Of the PNs and GPs enrolled in ACCEPt, 81% and 72% completed the questionnaire respectively. Less than a third of PNs (23%) and GPs (32%) correctly identified the two age groups with highest infection rates in women and only 16% vs 17% the correct age groups in men. More PNs than GPs would offer testing opportunistically to asymptomatic patients aged ≤25 years; women having a pap smear (84% vs 55%, P<0.01); antenatal checkup (83% vs 44%, P<0.01) and Aboriginal men with a sore throat (79% vs 33%, P<0.01), but also to patients outside of the guideline age group at the time of the survey; 26 year old males presenting for a medical check (78% vs 30%, P = <0.01) and 33 year old females presenting for a pill prescription (83% vs 55%, P<0.01). More PNs than GPs knew that retesting was recommended after chlamydia treatment (93% vs 87%, P=0.027); and the recommended timeframe was 3 months (66% vs 26%, P<0.01). A high proportion of PNs (90%) agreed that they could conduct chlamydia testing in general practice, with 79% wanting greater involvement and 89% further training.

Conclusions

Our survey reveals gaps in chlamydia knowledge and management among GPs and PNs that may be contributing to low testing rates in general practice. The ACCEPt intervention is well targeted to address these and support clinicians in increasing testing rates. PNs could have a role in increasing chlamydia testing.

Increasing chlamydia screening tests in general practice: a modified Zelen prospective Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial evaluating a complex intervention based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a structured complex intervention increases opportunistic chlamydia screening testing of patients aged 15-24 years attending English general practitioner (GP) practices.

METHODS

A prospective, Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial with a modified Zelen design involving 160 practices in South West England in 2010. The intervention was based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). It comprised of practice-based education with up to two additional contacts to increase the importance of screening to GP staff and their confidence to offer tests through skill development (including videos). Practical resources (targets, posters, invitation cards, computer reminders, newsletters including feedback) aimed to actively influence social cognitions of staff, increasing their testing intention.

RESULTS

Data from 76 intervention and 81 control practices were analysed. In intervention practices, chlamydia screening test rates were 2.43/100 15-24-year-olds registered preintervention, 4.34 during intervention and 3.46 postintervention; controls testing rates were 2.61/100 registered patients prior intervention, 3.0 during intervention and 2.82 postintervention. During the intervention period, testing in intervention practices was 1.76 times as great (CI 1.24 to 2.48) as controls; this persisted for 9 months postintervention (1.57 times as great, CI 1.27 to 2.30). Chlamydia infections detected increased in intervention practices from 2.1/1000 registered 15-24-year-olds prior intervention to 2.5 during the intervention compared with 2.0 and 2.3/1000 in controls (Estimated Rate Ratio intervention versus controls 1.4 (CI 1.01 to 1.93).

CONCLUSIONS

This complex intervention doubled chlamydia screening tests in fully engaged practices. The modified Zelen design gave realistic measures of practice full engagement (63%) and efficacy of this educational intervention in general practice; it should be used more often.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio database. UKCRN number 9722.