Literature DB >> 15170005

Diagnosis of genital chlamydia in primary care: an explanation of reasons for variation in chlamydia testing.

C A M McNulty1, E Freeman, J Bowen, J Shefras, K A Fenton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore the reasons for the 40-fold variation in diagnostic testing for genital Chlamydia trachomatis by general practices.
METHODS: A qualitative study with focus groups. We randomly selected urban and rural high and low testing practices served by Bristol, Hereford, and Gloucester microbiology laboratories. Open questions were asked about the investigation of C trachomatis in men and women in different clinical contexts.
RESULTS: The high and low testing practices did not differ in their age/sex make-up or by deprivation indices. There were major differences between high and low chlamydia testing practices. Low testing practices knew very little about the epidemiology and presentation of genital chlamydia infection and did not consider it in their differential diagnosis of genitourinary symptoms until patients had consulted several times. Low testers were less aware that chlamydia was usually asymptomatic, thought it was an inner city problem, and had poor knowledge of how to take diagnostic specimens. High testing practices either had a general practitioner with an interest in sexual health or a practice nurse who had completed specialist training in family planning. High testing practices were more cognizant of the symptoms and signs of chlamydia and always considered it in their differential diagnosis of genitourinary symptoms, including patients attending family planning clinics.
CONCLUSIONS: Any programme to increase chlamydia testing in primary care must be accompanied by an education and awareness programme especially targeted at low testing practices. This will need to include information about the benefits of testing and who, when, and how to test.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15170005      PMCID: PMC1744849          DOI: 10.1136/sti.2003.006767

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sex Transm Infect        ISSN: 1368-4973            Impact factor:   3.519


  6 in total

1.  Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in primary care.

Authors:  J D Ross; S Sutherland; J Coia
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-09

2.  Qualitative analysis of psychosocial impact of diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis: implications for screening.

Authors:  B Duncan; G Hart; A Scoular; A Bigrigg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-27

3.  Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection.

Authors:  K A Fenton; C Korovessis; A M Johnson; A McCadden; S McManus; K Wellings; C H Mercer; C Carder; A J Copas; K Nanchahal; W Macdowall; G Ridgway; J Field; B Erens
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Epidemiologic differences between chlamydia and gonorrhea.

Authors:  H L Zimmerman; J J Potterat; R L Dukes; J B Muth; H P Zimmerman; J S Fogle; C I Pratts
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Antibacterial prescribing and antibacterial resistance in English general practice: cross sectional study.

Authors:  P Priest; P Yudkin; C McNulty; D Mant
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-11-03

6.  Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings.

Authors:  J M Pimenta; M Catchpole; P A Rogers; E Perkins; N Jackson; C Carlisle; S Randall; J Hopwood; G Hewitt; G Underhill; H Mallinson; L McLean; T Gleave; J Tobin; V Harindra; A Ghosh
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.519

  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  With appropriate incentives, general practice can improve the coverage of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme.

Authors:  Richard Ma
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Temporal growth and geographic variation in the use of laboratory tests by NHS general practices: using routine data to identify research priorities.

Authors:  John Busby; Knut Schroeder; Wolfram Woltersdorf; Jonathan A C Sterne; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Alastair Hay; William Hollingworth
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Where do young men want to access STI screening? A stratified random probability sample survey of young men in Great Britain.

Authors:  John M Saunders; Catherine H Mercer; Lorna J Sutcliffe; Graham J Hart; Jackie Cassell; Claudia S Estcourt
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 3.519

4.  Usefulness of primary care electronic networks to assess the incidence of chlamydia, diagnosed by general practitioners.

Authors:  Anita W M Suijkerbuijk; Ingrid V F van den Broek; Henk J Brouwer; Ann M Vanrolleghem; Johanna H K Joosten; Robert A Verheij; Marianne A B van der Sande; Mirjam E E Kretzschmar
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  The added value of chlamydia screening between 2008-2010 in reaching young people in addition to chlamydia testing in regular care; an observational study.

Authors:  Geneviève A F S van Liere; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Jan E A M van Bergen; Hannelore M Götz; Frans Stals; Christian J P A Hoebe
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 3.090

6.  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.

Authors:  Lorraine K McDonagh; John M Saunders; Jackie Cassell; Tyrone Curtis; Hamad Bastaki; Thomas Hartney; Greta Rait
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 7.327

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.