General practitioner and the control of sexually transmissible infections

Sexually transmissible infections (STIs), one of the major preventable health problems affecting the Australian population, are often asymptomatic and, if undetected, can cause sub-fertility, infertility and chronic morbidity. In addition to these significant and costly consequences, STIs increase the risk of transmission of HIV. Given that 80% of Australian patients attend their General Practitioner (GP) each year, GPs are well placed to have a significant impact on STI transmission by diagnosing and treating both asymptomatic and symptomatic disease. Good professional practice would suggest that all GPs will undertake certain actions when they are consulted by a patient who either has symptoms of an STI or who appears to be at risk of acquiring an STI. This expectation is based on the premise that all GPs share the same detailed knowledge of STI risk factors and symptoms. It assumes that they will have no difficulty in eliciting such information from the patient, that the patient will comply with STI testing and treatment and that the patient will return for follow-up, to ensure that they and their sexual partners have been adequately treated. Given the constraints of the real world in which general practice exists, the sensitive nature of sexual health, and the stigma associated with STIs, there are many barriers to achieving such an outcome. My own previous research has highlighted some of the difficulties experienced by GPs in the area of STI control. This study has used data from four different sources (policy and stakeholder documents, literature, key informant interviews and my own past research) to examine ideal practice and actual practice in the prevention and treatment of STIs. A number of discrepancies were identified, and from these arose a series of recommendations for ways of making STI control in general practice less complex. To ensure that the results of the study were firmly embedded in the reality of general practice, comments on the recommendations were sought from GPs employed in a variety of practice settings, including those with low STI caseloads. These comments were used to modify the recommendations to ensure they would offer a practical and effective contribution to STI control in Victoria

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of primary health care providers towards oral health of preschool children in Qatar

Objective: Health care providers can effectively participate in oral health promotion for children in primary care setting. Currently, there are no oral health promotion programs that involve primary health care professionals in Qatar. Hence, this study was undertaken to examine the knowledge and attitudes of all health professionals who work in the Well baby Clinics in the primary health centers.Method: A 23-item questionnaire was distributed across 20 primary health centers. The questionnaire sought information on the demographic data of health professionals, their knowledge of oral health and their practices and attitudes towards critical oral health issues.  Data were examined by Pearson Chi-squared tests or Fisher’s Exact test(p = 0.05).Results: The response rate of the health professionals was 62.9%. Only 35.7% of the 225 participants received some form of oral health training during their undergraduate programme. The participants would assess the dental problem of the child(p = 0.05) and discuss the importance of tooth brushing with the mother(p = 0.03). A significant number of respondents (p = 0.04) were unlikely to assess the children’s fluoride intake. There was a significant difference in the group of participants that would examine the child’s teeth(p = 0.01) and counsel the mothers on prevention of dental problems(p = 0.01). This group would also refer children to dentist at 12 months of age(p = 0.05). Conclusions: Health professionals had a positive attitude towards the anticipatory guidance elements of oral health. However, the knowledge of healthcare professionals on childhood oral health is rather limited

Exploring anal self-examination as a means of screening for anal cancer in HIV positive men who have sex with men: a qualitative study

Background: Anal cancer is relatively common in HIV-positive men who have sex with men(MSM). However there are no clear guidelines on how to effectively screen for anal cancer. As earlier diagnosis of anal cancer is associated with increased survival, innovative ways such as utilizing anal self-examination to identify anal cancer should be explored. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 HIV-positive MSM from a range of ages (35 to 78 years). This study explored acceptability and barriers to implementing ASE as a method of anal cancer screening. Framework analysis was used to identify themes. Results: Seventeen out of 20 men had conducted an ASE before - six (35%) were for medical reasons, six (35%) for sexual reasons, three (18%) for both medical and sexual reasons, and two (12%) for cleaning purposes. Only 5 men were currently confident in detecting an abnormality. Whilst men were generally comfortable with the idea of utilizing ASE as a means for detecting anal cancer, potential barriers identified operated at three levels: attitudinal (discomfort with any anal examinations, anxiety about finding an abnormality, preference for health professional examination), knowledge (lack of awareness of anal cancer risk and ignorance of anal cancer symptoms) and practical (inadequate physical flexibility, importance of hygiene). Conclusion: ASE may be an acceptable means for anal cancer detection in HIV-positive MSM but training in detecting abnormalities is needed. The preference for health professional examination and inadequate physical flexibility may preclude its use for some men. Future trials to confirm its wider acceptability will be needed before undertaking an effectiveness trial for detecting anal cancer

Telling partners about chlamydia: how acceptable are the new technologies?

BACKGROUND Partner notification is accepted as a vital component in the control of chlamydia. However, in reality, many sexual partners of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia are never informed of their risk. The newer technologies of email and SMS have been used as a means of improving partner notification rates. This study explored the use and acceptability of different partner notification methods to help inform the development of strategies and resources to increase the number of partners notified. METHODS Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 people who were recently diagnosed with chlamydia from three sexual health centres and two general practices across three Australian jurisdictions. RESULTS Most participants chose to contact their partners either in person (56%) or by phone (44%). Only 17% chose email or SMS. Participants viewed face-to-face as the "gold standard" in partner notification because it demonstrated caring, respect and courage. Telephone contact, while considered insensitive by some, was often valued because it was quick, convenient and less confronting. Email was often seen as less personal while SMS was generally considered the least acceptable method for telling partners. There was also concern that emails and SMS could be misunderstood, not taken seriously or shown to others. Despite these, email and SMS were seen to be appropriate and useful in some circumstances. Letters, both from the patients or from their doctor, were viewed more favourably but were seldom used. CONCLUSION These findings suggest that many people diagnosed with chlamydia are reluctant to use the new technologies for partner notification, except in specific circumstances, and our efforts in developing partner notification resources may best be focused on giving patients the skills and confidence for personal interaction.The study was funded by the Australian Federal Government Department of Health and Ageing Chlamydia Pilot Program of Targeted Grants

Better than nothing? Patient-delivered partner therapy and partner notification for chlamydia: the views of Australian general practitioners

BACKGROUND Genital chlamydia is the most commonly notified sexually transmissible infection (STI) in Australia and worldwide and can have serious reproductive health outcomes. Partner notification, testing and treatment are important facets of chlamydia control. Traditional methods of partner notification are not reaching enough partners to effectively control transmission of chlamydia. Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) has been shown to improve the treatment of sexual partners. In Australia, General Practitioners (GPs) are responsible for the bulk of chlamydia testing, diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This study aimed to determine the views and practices of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to partner notification and PDPT for chlamydia and explored GPs' perceptions of their patients' barriers to notifying partners of a chlamydia diagnosis. METHODS In-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 general practitioners (GPs) from rural, regional and urban Australia from November 2006 to March 2007. Topics covered: GPs' current practice and views about partner notification, perceived barriers and useful supports, previous use of and views regarding PDPT.Transcripts were imported into NVivo7 and subjected to thematic analysis. Data saturation was reached after 32 interviews had been completed. RESULTS Perceived barriers to patients telling partners (patient referral) included: stigma; age and cultural background; casual or long-term relationship, ongoing relationship or not. Barriers to GPs undertaking partner notification (provider referral) included: lack of time and staff; lack of contact details; uncertainty about the legality of contacting partners and whether this constitutes breach of patient confidentiality; and feeling both personally uncomfortable and inadequately trained to contact someone who is not their patient. GPs were divided on the use of PDPT--many felt concerned that it is not best clinical practice but many also felt that it is better than nothing.GPs identified the following factors which they considered would facilitate partner notification: clear clinical guidelines; a legal framework around partner notification; a formal chlamydia screening program; financial incentives; education and practical support for health professionals, and raising awareness of chlamydia in the community, in particular amongst young people. CONCLUSIONS GPs reported some partners do not seek medical treatment even after they are notified of being a sexual contact of a patient with chlamydia. More routine use of PDPT may help address this issue however GPs in this study had negative attitudes to the use of PDPT. Appropriate guidelines and legislation may make the use of PDPT more acceptable to Australian GPs.The Australian Federal Government Department of Health and Ageing Chlamydia Pilot Program of Targeted Grants funded the study

Management of Chlamydia Cases in Australia (MoCCA): protocol for a non-randomised implementation and feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION: The sexually transmitted infection chlamydia can cause significant complications, particularly among people with female reproductive organs. Optimal management includes timely and appropriate treatment, notifying and treating sexual partners, timely retesting for reinfection and detecting complications including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). In Australia, mainstream primary care (general practice) is where most chlamydia infections are diagnosed, making it a key setting for optimising chlamydia management. High reinfection and low retesting rates suggest partner notification and retesting are not uniformly provided. The Management of Chlamydia Cases in Australia (MoCCA) study seeks to address gaps in chlamydia management in Australian general practice through implementing interventions shown to improve chlamydia management in specialist services. MoCCA will focus on improving retesting, partner management (including patient-delivered partner therapy) and PID diagnosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MoCCA is a non-randomised implementation and feasibility trial aiming to determine how best to implement interventions to support general practice in delivering best practice chlamydia management. Our method is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Normalisation Process Theory. MoCCA interventions include a website, flow charts, fact sheets, mailed specimen kits and autofills to streamline chlamydia consultation documentation. We aim to recruit 20 general practices across three Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland) through which we will implement the interventions over 12–18 months. Mixed methods involving qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses (observation, interviews, surveys) from staff and patients will be undertaken to explore our intervention implementation, acceptability and uptake. Deidentified general practice and laboratory data will be used to measure pre-post chlamydia testing, retesting, reinfection and PID rates, and to estimate MoCCA intervention costs. Our findings will guide scale-up plans for Australian general practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from The University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (Ethics ID: 22665). Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and study reports

Interpreting in Sexual and Reproductive Health Consults With Burma Born Refugees Post Settlement: Insights From an Australian Qualitative Study

Interpreters work with health care professionals to overcome language challenges during sexual and reproductive (SRH) health discussions with people from refugee backgrounds. Disclosures of traumatic refugee journeys and sexual assault combined with refugees’ unfamiliarity with Western health concepts and service provision can increase the interpreting challenges. Published literature provides general guidance on working with interpreters in primary care but few studies focus on interpretation in refugee SRH consults. To address this, we explored the challenges faced by providers of refugee services (PRS) during interpreter mediated SRH consultations with Burma born refugees post settlement in Australia. We used qualitative methodology and interviewed 29 PRS involved with migrants from Burma including general practitioners, nurses, interpreters, bilingual social workers, and administrative staff. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic analysis following independent coding by the members of the research team. Key themes were formulated after a consensus discussion. The theme of “interpretation related issues” was identified with six sub-themes including 1) privacy and confidentiality 2) influence of interpreter’s identity 3) gender matching of the interpreter 4) family member vs. professional interpreters 5) telephone vs. face-to-face interpreting 6) setting up the consultation room. When faced with these interpretation related challenges in providing SRH services to people from refugee backgrounds, health care providers combine best practice advice, experience-based knowledge and “mundane creativity” to adapt to the needs of the specific patients. The complexity of interpreted SRH consultations in refugee settings needs to be appreciated in making good judgments when choosing the best way to optimize communication. This paper identifies the critical elements which could be incorporated when making such a judgement. Future research should include the experiences of refugee patients to provide a more comprehensive perspective

Chlamydia prevalence in young attenders of rural and regional primary care services in Australia: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE To estimate chlamydia prevalence among 16-29-year-olds attending general practice clinics in Australia. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 2010 to December 2012. Sexually experienced 16-29-year-olds were recruited from 134 general practice clinics in 54 rural and regional towns in four states and in nine metropolitan clinics (consecutive patients were invited to participate). Participants completed a questionnaire and were tested for chlamydia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Chlamydia prevalence. RESULTS Of 4284 participants, 197 tested positive for chlamydia (4.6%; 95% CI, 3.9%-5.3%). Prevalence was similar in men (5.2% [65/1257]; 95% CI, 3.9%-6.4%) and women (4.4% [132/3027]; 95% CI, 3.5%-5.2%) (P = 0.25) and high in those reporting genital symptoms or a partner with a sexually transmissible infection (STI) - 17.0% in men (8/47; 95% CI, 2.8%-31.2%); 9.5% in women (16/169; 95% CI, 5.1%-13.8%). Nearly three-quarters of cases (73.4% [130/177]) were diagnosed in asymptomatic patients attending for non-sexual health reasons, and 83.8% of all participants (3258/3890) had attended for non-sexual health reasons. Prevalence was slightly higher in participants from rural and regional areas (4.8% [179/3724]; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.6%) than those from metropolitan areas (3.1% [17/548]; 95% CI, 1.5%-4.7%) (P = 0.08). In multivariable analysis, increasing partner numbers in previous 12 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for three or more partners, 5.11 [95% CI, 2.35-11.08]), chlamydia diagnosis in previous 12 months (AOR, 4.35 [95% CI, 1.52-12.41]) and inconsistent condom use with most recent partner (AOR, 2.90 [95% CI, 1.31-6.40]) were significantly associated with chlamydia in men. In women, increasing partner numbers in previous 12 months (AOR for two partners, 2.59 [95% CI, 1.59-4.23]; AOR for three or more partners, 3.58 [95% CI, 2.26-5.68]), chlamydia diagnosis in previous 12 months (AOR, 3.13 [95% CI, 1.62-6.06]) and age (AOR for 25-29-year-olds, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.12-0.44]) were associated with chlamydia. CONCLUSIONS Chlamydia prevalence is similar in young men and women attending general practice. Testing only those with genital symptoms or a partner with an STI would have missed three-quarters of cases. Most men and women are amenable to being tested in general practice, even in rural and regional areas

Young pregnant women's views on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In pregnancy, untreated chlamydia infection has been associated with adverse outcomes for both mother and infant. Like most women, pregnant women infected with chlamydia do not report genital symptoms, and are therefore unlikely to be aware of their infection. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of screening pregnant women aged 16-25 years for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>As part of a larger prospective, cross-sectional study of pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending antenatal services across Melbourne, Australia, 100 women were invited to participate in a face-to-face, semi structured interview on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia during pregnancy. Women infected with chlamydia were oversampled (n = 31).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women had low levels of awareness of chlamydia before the test, retained relatively little knowledge after the test and commonly had misconceptions around chlamydia transmission, testing and sequelae. Women indicated a high level of acceptance and support for chlamydia screening, expressing their willingness to undertake whatever care was necessary to ensure the health of their baby. There was a strong preference for urine testing over other methods of specimen collection. Women questioned why testing was not already conducted alongside other antenatal STI screening tests, particularly in view of the risks chlamydia poses to the baby. Women who tested positive for chlamydia had mixed reactions, however, most felt relief and gratitude at having had chlamydia detected and reported high levels of partner support.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Chlamydia screening as part of routine antenatal care was considered highly acceptable among young pregnant women who recognized the benefits of screening and strongly supported its implementation as part of routine antenatal care. The acceptability of screening is important to the uptake of chlamydia screening in future antenatal screening strategies.</p