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.
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.
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
Authors: Joy Noel Baumgartner; Mackenzie Green; Mark A Weaver; Gottlieb Mpangile; Thecla W Kohi; Stella N Mujaya; Christine Lasway Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2013-07-26 Impact factor: 3.344
Authors: Rose J Kosgei; Kizito M Lubano; Changyu Shen; Kara K Wools-Kaloustian; Beverly S Musick; Abraham M Siika; Hillary Mabeya; E Jane Carter; Ann Mwangi; James Kiarie Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Stephanie D Roche; Josephine Odoyo; Elizabeth Irungu; Benn Kwach; Annabell Dollah; Bernard Nyerere; Sue Peacock; Jennifer F Morton; Gabrielle O'Malley; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Jared M Baeten; Kenneth K Mugwanya Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Yi-Ping Hsieh; Yun-Ju Wang; Ling-Yi Feng; Li-Tzy Wu; Jih-Heng Li Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.614