Search

Objective: To determine the needs of primary healthcare general practice (GP) staff, stakeholders and trainers to inform the adaptation of a locally successful complex intervention (Chlamydia Intervention Randomised Trial (CIRT)) aimed at increasing chlamydia testing within primary healthcare within South West England to three EU countries (Estonia, France and Sweden) and throughout England., Design: Qualitative interviews., Setting: European primary healthcare in England, France, Sweden and Estonia with a range of chlamydia screening provision in 2013., Participants: 45 GP staff, 13 trainers and 18 stakeholders., Interviews: The iterative interview schedule explored participants' personal attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural controls around provision of chlamydia testing, sexual health services and training in general practice. Researchers used a common thematic analysis., Results: Findings were similar across all countries. Most participants agreed that chlamydia testing and sexual health services should be offered in general practice. There was no culture of GP staff routinely offering opportunistic chlamydia testing or sexual health advice, and due to other priorities, participants reported this would be challenging. All participants indicated that the CIRT workshop covering chlamydia testing and sexual health would be useful if practice based, included all practice staff and action planning, and was adequately resourced. Participants suggested minor adaptations to CIRT to suit their country's health services., Conclusions: A common complex intervention can be adapted for use across Europe, despite varied sexual health provision. The intervention (ChlamydiA Testing Training in Europe (CATTE)) should comprise: a staff workshop covering sexual health and chlamydia testing rates and procedures, action planning and patient materials and staff reminders via computer prompts, emails or newsletters, with testing feedback through practice champions. CATTE materials are available at: www.STItraining.eu., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

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.

Background: Providing sexual health services in primary care is an essential step towards universal provision. However they are not offered consistently. We conducted a national pilot of an educational intervention to improve staff's skills and confidence to increase chlamydia testing rates and provide condoms with contraceptive information plus HIV testing according to national guidelines, known as 3Cs&HIV. The effectiveness of the pilot on chlamydia testing and diagnosis rates in general practice was evaluated., Methods: The pilot was implemented using a step-wedge design over three phases during 2013 and 2014 in England. The intervention combined educational workshops with posters, testing performance feedback and continuous support. Chlamydia testing and diagnosis rates in participating general practices during the control and intervention periods were compared adjusting for seasonal trends in chlamydia testing and differences in practice size. Intervention effect modification was assessed for the following general practice characteristics: chlamydia testing rate compared to national median, number of general practice staff employed, payment for chlamydia screening, practice urban/rurality classification, and proximity to sexual health clinics., Results: The 460 participating practices conducted 26,021 tests in the control period and 18,797 tests during the intervention period. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in the unadjusted median tests and diagnoses per month per practice after receiving training: 2.7 vs 2.7; 0.1 vs 0.1. Multivariable negative binomial regression analysis found no significant change in overall testing or diagnoses post-intervention (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.01, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.07, P = 0.72; 0.98 CI 0.84-1.15, P = 0.84, respectively). Stratified analysis showed testing increased significantly in practices where payments were in place prior to the intervention (IRR 2.12 CI 1.41-3.18, P < 0.001) and in practices with 6-15 staff (6-10 GPs IRR 1.35 (1.07-1.71), P = 0.012; 11-15 GPs IRR 1.37 (1.09-1.73), P = 0.007)., Conclusion: This national pilot of short educational training sessions found no overall effect on chlamydia testing in primary care. However, in certain sub-groups chlamydia testing rates increased due to the intervention. This demonstrates the importance of piloting and evaluating any service improvement intervention to assess the impact before widespread implementation, and the need for detailed understanding of local services in order to select effective interventions.

Background: Chlamydia trachomatis remains a significant public health problem. We used a complex intervention, with general practice staff, consisting of practice based workshops, posters, computer prompts and testing feedback and feedback to increase routine chlamydia screening tests in under 25 year olds in South West England. We aimed to evaluate how intervention components were received by staff and to understand what determined their implementation into ongoing practice., Methods: We used face-to-face and telephone individual interviews with 29 general practice staff analysed thematically within a Normalisation Process Theory Framework which explores: 1. Coherence (if participants understand the purpose of the intervention); 2. Cognitive participation (engagement with and implementation of the intervention); 3. Collective action (work actually undertaken that drives the intervention forwards); 4. Reflexive monitoring (assessment of the impact of the intervention)., Results: Our results showed coherence as all staff including receptionists understood the purpose of the training was to make them aware of the value of chlamydia screening tests and how to increase this in their general practice. The training was described by nearly all staff as being of high quality and responsible for creating a shared understanding between staff of how to undertake routine chlamydia screening. Cognitive participation in many general practice staff teams was demonstrated through their engagement by meeting after the training to discuss implementation, which confirmed the role of each staff member and the use of materials. However several participants still felt unable to discuss chlamydia in many consultations or described sexual health as low priority among colleagues. National targets were considered so high for some general practice staff that they didn't engage with the screening intervention. Collective action work undertaken to drive the intervention included use of computer prompts which helped staff remember to make the offer, testing rate feedback and having a designated lead. Ensuring patients collected samples when still in the general practice was not attained in most general practices. Reflexive monitoring showed positive feedback from patients and other staff about the value of screening, and feedback about the general practices testing rates helped sustain activity., Conclusions: A complex intervention including interactive workshops, materials to help implementation and feedback can help chlamydia screening testing increase in general practices.

Background: The objectives of this study were to describe and compare chlamydia testing provided by general practitioners (GPs) in four selected European countries with well-developed primary health care systems and high reported chlamydia rates; we aimed to compare contrasting countries where chlamydia testing is provided by GPs (England, Sweden) with countries where primary care chlamydia testing is absent or very limited (France, Estonia)., Methods: For data generation a structured questionnaire was developed and secondary data sources were searched. The questionnaire developed by the research team allowed a systematic approach to analysing chlamydia care (including testing in general practice) and the gathering of relevant data., Results: There were no significant differences in the burden of the disease or the type of general practice care provision in the study countries. In all four countries, testing for chlamydia (with nucleic acid amplification test, NAAT) is available in the public sector, a substantial proportion (>60%) of young people aged 16-25 years visit their general practitioner (GP) annually, and reimbursement for chlamydia testing costs to the relevant parties (GPs in England, Sweden and Estonia; and patients in France) by the national health insurance system or its equivalent.In countries where chlamydia testing is provided by GPs (England, Sweden) a national strategy or plan on STI control that specifically mentions chlamydia was in force, chlamydia care guidelines for GPs were in place and STI management was more firmly established in the GP residency training curriculum, either formally (England) or informally (Sweden), than in the other countries., Conclusion: Future research on the effectiveness of chlamydia screening (also in the context of general practice care) and program provision should reflect national needs and the prevention of complications.

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.