Facilitators and barriers to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people using a theoretical model (COM-B): a systematic review protocol

Introduction Chlamydia is a key health concern with high economic and social costs. There were over 200 000 chlamydia diagnoses made in England in 2015. The burden of chlamydia is greatest among young people where the highest prevalence rates are found. Annual testing for sexually active young people is recommended; however, many of those at risk do not receive testing. General practice has been identified as an ideal setting for testing, yet efforts to increase testing in this setting have not been effective. One theoretical model which may provide insight into the underpinnings of chlamydia testing is the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model). The aim of this systematic review is to: (1) identify barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing for young people in general practice and (2) use a theoretical model to conduct a behavioural analysis of chlamydia testing behaviour. Methods and analysis Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies published after 2000 will be included. Seven databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Informit, PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science) will be searched to identify peer-reviewed publications which examined barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data regarding study design and key findings will be extracted. The data will be analysed using thematic analysis and the resultant factors will be mapped onto the COM-B model components. All findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated via submission for publication to a peer-review journal when complete and for presentation at national and international conferences. The review findings will be used to inform the development of interventions to facilitate effective and efficient chlamydia testing in general practice

Additional file 4: of 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

Findings of included studies with young people. (PDF 221 kb

Additional file 2: of 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

Search Strategy for MEDLINE. (PDF 65 kb

Additional file 5: of 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

Illustrative quotes for each theme. (PDF 161 kb

Additional file 1: of Service evaluation of an educational intervention to improve sexual health services in primary care implemented using a step-wedge design: analysis of chlamydia testing and diagnosis rate changes

Contains the per-protocol analysis for the 268 practices that received at least one training session. (DOC 37 kb

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

Background Chlamydia is a major public health concern, with high economic and social costs. In 2016, there were over 200,000 chlamydia diagnoses made in England. The highest prevalence rates are found among young people. Although annual testing for sexually active young people is recommended, many do not receive testing. General practice is one ideal setting for testing, yet attempts to increase testing in this setting have been disappointing. The Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) may help improve understanding of the underpinnings of chlamydia testing. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing for young people and primary care practitioners in general practice and (2) map facilitators and barriers onto the COM-B model. Methods Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies published after 2000 were included. Seven databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed publications which examined barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data (i.e., participant quotations, theme descriptions, and survey results) regarding study design and key findings were extracted. The data was first analysed using thematic analysis, following this, the resultant factors were mapped onto the COM-B model components. All findings are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Four hundred eleven papers were identified; 39 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., time constraints), and service level (e.g., practice nurses). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: physical capability (e.g., practice nurse involvement), psychological capability (e.g.: lack of knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding perceived risk), automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment and shame), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), social opportunity (e.g., stigma). Conclusions This systematic review provides a synthesis of the literature which acknowledges factors across multiple levels and components. The COM-B model provided the framework for understanding the complexity of chlamydia testing behaviour. While we cannot at this juncture state which component represents the most salient influence on chlamydia testing, across all three levels, multiple barriers and facilitators were identified relating psychological capability and physical and social opportunity. Implementation should focus on (1) normalisation, (2) communication, (3) infection-specific information, and (4) mode of testing. In order to increase chlamydia testing in general practice, a multifaceted theory- and evidence-based approach is needed

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

Background Chlamydia is a major public health concern, with high economic and social costs. In 2016, there were over 200,000 chlamydia diagnoses made in England. The highest prevalence rates are found among young people. Although annual testing for sexually active young people is recommended, many do not receive testing. General practice is one ideal setting for testing, yet attempts to increase testing in this setting have been disappointing. The Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) may help improve understanding of the underpinnings of chlamydia testing. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing for young people and primary care practitioners in general practice and (2) map facilitators and barriers onto the COM-B model. Methods Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies published after 2000 were included. Seven databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed publications which examined barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data (i.e., participant quotations, theme descriptions, and survey results) regarding study design and key findings were extracted. The data was first analysed using thematic analysis, following this, the resultant factors were mapped onto the COM-B model components. All findings are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Four hundred eleven papers were identified; 39 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., time constraints), and service level (e.g., practice nurses). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: physical capability (e.g., practice nurse involvement), psychological capability (e.g.: lack of knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding perceived risk), automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment and shame), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), social opportunity (e.g., stigma). Conclusions This systematic review provides a synthesis of the literature which acknowledges factors across multiple levels and components. The COM-B model provided the framework for understanding the complexity of chlamydia testing behaviour. While we cannot at this juncture state which component represents the most salient influence on chlamydia testing, across all three levels, multiple barriers and facilitators were identified relating psychological capability and physical and social opportunity. Implementation should focus on (1) normalisation, (2) communication, (3) infection-specific information, and (4) mode of testing. In order to increase chlamydia testing in general practice, a multifaceted theory- and evidence-based approach is needed

Long-term kidney outcomes after COVID-19: a matched cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform

Background COVID-19 severe enough to require hospitalisation is commonly associated with acute kidney injury. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 leads to long-term kidney outcomes in the broader population. Methods We undertook a population-based, matched cohort study. With the approval of NHS England, we used primary and secondary care electronic health records from England using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. We compared people with and without COVID-19 using fully-adjusted, stratified, cause-specific Cox models for kidney failure, 50% reduction in kidney function, and death. Findings Overall, all outcomes were increased after COVID-19 over the course of follow-up (HR for kidney failure 1.93 [95%CI 1.84-2.03]). Hazards of kidney failure were greatest after hospitalisation (HR 7.74 [95%CI 7.00-8.56]) and remained increased beyond 180 days of follow-up. There was no evidence of increased risk in those not hospitalised (HR 0.85 [95%CI 0.79-0.90]). Increased kidney failure was more pronounced in black ethnicity (HR 4.50 [95%CI 2.92-6.92]) compared to white ethnicity (HR 1.82 [95%CI 1.71-1.94]). Amongst those hospitalised with COVID-19, there was no attenuation of kidney failure between the first wave (HR 8.74 [95%CI 6.88-11.08]) and the Omicron wave (HR 8.36 [95%CI 6.81-10.27]). Interpretation We observed increased long-term kidney outcomes in people hospitalised with COVID-19, as well as notable ethnic differences. Our results suggest strategies to minimise severe COVID-19 should continue to be optimised among vulnerable groups, and that kidney function should be proactively monitored after hospital discharge.</p