» Articles » PMID: 15239912

Barriers to Opportunistic Chlamydia Testing in Primary Care

Overview
Journal Br J Gen Pract
Specialty Public Health
Date 2004 Jul 9
PMID 15239912
Citations 28
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Opportunistic testing and screening for genital chlamydia infection in sexually active women under the age of 25 years can lead to a reduction in chlamydia infection and its related morbidity.

Aims: To explore the barriers to testing for genital chlamydial infection in primary care.

Design Of Study: Qualitative study with focus groups.

Setting: Rural and urban general practice in Southwest England.

Methods: Focus groups were held with randomly selected high- and lowtesting general practices in Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and Avon. The high- and low-testing practices did not differ in their age/sex make-up, or by deprivation indices. Open questions were asked about the management of genitourinary symptoms and opportunistic testing for chlamydia. Data were collected and analysed concurrently until saturation occurred.

Results: Although staff from high test rate practices were much more aware of the evidence for opportunistic chlamydia testing and screening, none of the practices were happy to discuss chlamydia in a consultation unrelated to sexual health. The greatest barriers to opportunistic chlamydia testing and screening were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing, when and how to take specimens, lack of time, worries about discussing sexual health, and lack of guidance. Healthcare staff stated that any increased testing should be accompanied by clear, concise primary care trust guidance on when and how to test, including how to obtain informed consent and perform contact tracing. Staff felt that testing could be undertaken at family planning clinics or with cervical smears if patients received information before the consultation. Alternatively, in larger practices specific chlamydia clinics could be held.

Conclusion: The Department of Health needs to be aware of the extreme pressures that primary care staff are under, and the potential barriers to any screening implementation. Efforts to increase chlamydia screening in this setting should be accompanied by clear guidance and education. Any chlamydia clinics or increased testing must have appropriate financial and staff resources. Genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics, or level three practices with GUM expertise, will need to be increased in parallel with testing in primary care to provide appropriate contact tracing and follow-up.

Citing Articles

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

Weng R, Zhang C, Wen L, Luo Y, Ye J, Wang H BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):601.

PMID: 35509056 PMC: 9067339. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08012-3.


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.

McDonagh L, Saunders J, Cassell J, Curtis T, Bastaki H, Hartney T Implement Sci. 2018; 13(1):130.

PMID: 30348165 PMC: 6196559. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0821-y.


Barriers and Facilitators of Partner Treatment of Chlamydia: A Qualitative Investigation with Prescribers and Community Pharmacists.

Wood H, Hall C, Ioppolo E, Ioppolo R, Scacchia E, Clifford R Pharmacy (Basel). 2018; 6(1).

PMID: 29419807 PMC: 5874556. DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy6010017.


Qualitative interviews with healthcare staff in four European countries to inform adaptation of an intervention to increase chlamydia testing.

McNulty C, Ricketts E, Fredlund H, Uuskula A, Town K, Rugman C BMJ Open. 2017; 7(9):e017528.

PMID: 28951413 PMC: 5623510. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017528.


Tools to overcome potential barriers to chlamydia screening in general practice: Qualitative evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention.

Ricketts E, OConnell Francischetto E, Wallace L, Hogan A, McNulty C BMC Fam Pract. 2016; 17:33.

PMID: 27001608 PMC: 4802657. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-016-0430-2.


References
1.
Scholes D, Stergachis A, Heidrich F, Andrilla H, Holmes K, Stamm W . Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(21):1362-6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199605233342103. View

2.
Catchpole M, Robinson A, Temple A . Chlamydia screening in the United Kingdom. Sex Transm Infect. 2003; 79(1):3-4. PMC: 1744601. DOI: 10.1136/sti.79.1.3. View

3.
Santer M, Warner P, Wyke S, Sutherland S . Opportunistic screening for chlamydia infection in general practice: can we reach young women?. J Med Screen. 2001; 7(4):175-6. DOI: 10.1136/jms.7.4.175. View

4.
Pimenta J, Catchpole M, Rogers P, Hopwood J, Randall S, Mallinson H . Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases. Sex Transm Infect. 2003; 79(1):22-7. PMC: 1744609. DOI: 10.1136/sti.79.1.22. View

5.
Pimenta J, Catchpole M, Rogers P, Perkins E, Jackson N, Carlisle C . Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Sex Transm Infect. 2003; 79(1):16-21. PMC: 1744586. DOI: 10.1136/sti.79.1.16. View