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

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

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>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.</p

Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Financial incentives have been used for many years internationally to improve quality of care in general practice. The aim of this pilot study was to determine if offering general practitioners (GP) a small incentive payment per test would increase chlamydia testing in women aged 16 to 24 years, attending general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>General practice clinics (n = 12) across Victoria, Australia, were cluster randomized to receive either a $AUD5 payment per chlamydia test or no payment for testing 16 to 24 year old women for chlamydia. Data were collected on the number of chlamydia tests and patient consultations undertaken by each GP over two time periods: 12 month pre-trial and 6 month trial period. The impact of the intervention was assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, accommodating for clustering at GP level.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Testing increased from 6.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) to 8.8% (95% CI: 4.8, 13.0) (p = 0.1) in the control group and from 11.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 18.5) to 13.4% (95% CI: 9.5, 17.5) (p = 0.4) in the intervention group. Overall, the intervention did not result in a significant increase in chlamydia testing in general practice. The odds ratio for an increase in testing in the intervention group compared to the control group was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2). Major barriers to increased chlamydia testing reported by GPs included a lack of time, difficulty in remembering to offer testing and a lack of patient awareness around testing.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A small financial incentive alone did not increase chlamydia testing among young women attending general practice. It is possible small incentive payments in conjunction with reminder and feedback systems may be effective, as may higher financial incentive payments. Further research is required to determine if financial incentives can increase testing in Australian general practice, the type and level of financial scheme required and whether incentives needs to be part of a multi-faceted package.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12608000499381.</p

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Transcripts were imported into NVivo7 and subjected to thematic analysis. Data saturation was reached after 32 interviews had been completed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>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.</p