General practice chlamydia testing: qualitative study of staff approaches using behavioural change theory.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Amna Asad, Beattie Robyn Hazel Sturrock, Jessica Carter, John Saunders, Jackie Cassell, Greta Rait, Lorraine McDonagh
{"title":"General practice chlamydia testing: qualitative study of staff approaches using behavioural change theory.","authors":"Amna Asad, Beattie Robyn Hazel Sturrock, Jessica Carter, John Saunders, Jackie Cassell, Greta Rait, Lorraine McDonagh","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chlamydia is the most diagnosed bacterial sexually transmitted infection in England, but opportunistic testing remains low in general practice despite high prevalence among young people. Attempts to increase testing have been met with little success; therefore, there is a need to explore why rates remain low and how this may be improved.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore general practice staff perceptions of opportunistic chlamydia testing, including barriers, facilitators, interventions, and policies, using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW).</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Qualitative interviews and focus groups with general practice staff in England.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>23 semi-structured individual interviews and seven focus groups with general practice staff were conducted. Data was analysed using inductive thematic analysis, followed by thematic categorisation onto the Behaviour Change Wheel.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants identified several barriers to chlamydia testing corresponding with BCW components, including low perceived knowledge (psychological capability), general practice context (physical opportunity), cultural norms (social opportunity), testing not prioritised (reflective motivation), and concerns about patient reactions (automatic motivation). Proposed intervention functions included education, persuasion (e.g. posters), incentivisation (e.g. financial incentives), training, and environmental restructuring (e.g. computer reminders). Potential policy categories discussed were communication (e.g. campaigns) and service provision (e.g. GP drop-in sessions at other venues).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study identified barriers to chlamydia testing in English general practice and potential ways to address these, contributing new insights to existing literature. This research can be utilised to design multi-component, impactful interventions to increase testing in general practice and ultimately reduce harm posed by chlamydia infections.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0498","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chlamydia is the most diagnosed bacterial sexually transmitted infection in England, but opportunistic testing remains low in general practice despite high prevalence among young people. Attempts to increase testing have been met with little success; therefore, there is a need to explore why rates remain low and how this may be improved.

Aim: To explore general practice staff perceptions of opportunistic chlamydia testing, including barriers, facilitators, interventions, and policies, using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW).

Design and setting: Qualitative interviews and focus groups with general practice staff in England.

Method: 23 semi-structured individual interviews and seven focus groups with general practice staff were conducted. Data was analysed using inductive thematic analysis, followed by thematic categorisation onto the Behaviour Change Wheel.

Results: Participants identified several barriers to chlamydia testing corresponding with BCW components, including low perceived knowledge (psychological capability), general practice context (physical opportunity), cultural norms (social opportunity), testing not prioritised (reflective motivation), and concerns about patient reactions (automatic motivation). Proposed intervention functions included education, persuasion (e.g. posters), incentivisation (e.g. financial incentives), training, and environmental restructuring (e.g. computer reminders). Potential policy categories discussed were communication (e.g. campaigns) and service provision (e.g. GP drop-in sessions at other venues).

Conclusion: This study identified barriers to chlamydia testing in English general practice and potential ways to address these, contributing new insights to existing literature. This research can be utilised to design multi-component, impactful interventions to increase testing in general practice and ultimately reduce harm posed by chlamydia infections.

一般实践衣原体检测:使用行为改变理论的工作人员方法的定性研究。
背景:衣原体是英国诊断最多的细菌性传播感染,但机会性检测在一般实践中仍然很低,尽管在年轻人中发病率很高。增加检测的尝试收效甚微;因此,有必要探讨为什么利率仍然很低,以及如何改善这种情况。目的:利用行为改变轮(BCW),探讨全科医生对机会性衣原体检测的看法,包括障碍、促进因素、干预措施和政策。设计和设置:定性访谈和焦点小组与全科医生在英格兰。方法:对全科医生进行23次半结构化个人访谈和7次焦点小组访谈。数据分析使用归纳主题分析,然后在行为改变轮上进行主题分类。结果:参与者确定了与BCW组成部分相对应的衣原体检测的几个障碍,包括低认知知识(心理能力)、一般实践背景(物理机会)、文化规范(社会机会)、检测不优先(反思动机)和对患者反应的担忧(自动动机)。建议的干预功能包括教育、说服(如海报)、激励(如财政激励)、培训和环境重组(如电脑提醒)。讨论的潜在政策类别包括沟通(如活动)和服务提供(如全科医生在其他场所的上门服务)。结论:本研究确定了在英语全科实践中衣原体检测的障碍以及解决这些障碍的潜在方法,为现有文献提供了新的见解。这项研究可用于设计多组分、有效的干预措施,以增加一般实践中的检测,并最终减少衣原体感染造成的危害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信