French RS, Coope CM, Graham A, Gerressu M, Salisbury C, Stephenson JM. One stop shop versus collaborative integration: what is the best way of delivering sexual health services?
Sex Transm Infect 2006;
82:202-6. [PMID:
16731668 PMCID:
PMC2564738 DOI:
10.1136/sti.2005.018093]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To examine various models of integrated and/or one stop shop (OSS) sexual health services (including general practice, mainstream specialist services, and designated young people's services) and explore their relative strengths and weaknesses.
METHODS
Literature review and interviews with key informants involved in developing the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV (n = 11).
RESULTS
The paper focuses on five broad perspectives (logistics, public health, users, staff, and cost). Contraceptive and genitourinary medicine issues are closely related. However, there is no agreement about what is meant by having "integrated" services, about which services should be integrated, or where integration should happen. There are concerns that OSSs will result in over-centralisation, to the disadvantage of stand alone and satellite services. OSS models are potentially more user focused, but the stigma that surrounds sexual health services may create an access barrier. From staff perspectives, the advantages are greater career opportunities and increased responsibility, while the disadvantages are concern that OSSs will result in loss of expertise and professional status. Cost effectiveness data are contradictory.
CONCLUSION
Although there is a policy commitment to look at how integrated services can be better developed, more evidence is required on the impact and appropriateness of this approach.
Collapse