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

What women want from local primary care services for unintended pregnancy in rural Australia: a qualitative study from rural New South Wales

Background: Under the generalist model of health care in rural Australia, general practitioners (GPs) are often the first point of contact for women seeking health services for unintended pregnancy, including pregnancy decision-making support and options advice, antenatal or abortion care. Rural women are more likely to experience unintended pregnancy in Australia, yet little is known about how well local rural primary healthcare services currently meet their needs. Methods: To address this gap, this qualitative study explores through in-depth semi-structured interviews, the experiences of 20 rural women managing an unintended pregnancy, and their expectations of, and satisfaction with, the quality of care they received. The Framework Method was used to organise data and conduct an inductive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes related to management of unintended pregnancy in a rural primary care setting were identified: (1) women expect informed and efficient care once services are reached; (2) women desire greater choice and aftercare; and (3) comprehensive reproductive health should be part of rural primary care. Participants indicated an awareness of the limitations of the rural health system, yet a firm expectation that despite access delays, all of their reproductive health needs would be met. Choice, time efficiency, and aftercare were identified as gaps in the current primary care service experience. A desire for greater attention to rural reproductive health, including improved contraception, was also emphasised. Conclusions: Rural women with unintended pregnancy experienced gaps in service quality and described a lack of woman-centred care in their local rural health setting. This study offers insight into how rural primary care providers can better support women to make decisions about and reach their preferred services for unintended pregnancy

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

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

Co-design of a nurse-led model of care to increase access to medical abortion and contraception in rural and regional general practice: A protocol.

PROBLEM: Women in rural and regional Australia experience a number of barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health care including lack of local services, high costs and misinformation. SETTING: Nurse-led task-sharing models of care for provision of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and early medical abortion (EMA) are one strategy to reduce barriers and improve access to services but have yet to be developed in general practice. KEY MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT: Through a co-design process, we will develop a nurse-led model of care for LARC and EMA provision that can be delivered through face-to-face consultations or via telehealth in rural general practice in Australia. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: A co-design workshop, involving consumers, health professionals (particularly General Practitioners (GPs) and Practice Nurses (PNs)), GP managers and key stakeholders will be conducted to design nurse-led models of care for LARC and EMA including implant insertion by nurses. The workshop will be informed by the 'Experience-Based Co-Design' toolkit and involves participants mapping the patient journey for service provision to inform a new model of care. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Recommendations from the workshop will inform a nurse-led model of care for LARC and EMA provision in rural general practice. The model will provide practical guidance for the set-up and delivery of services. LESSONS LEARNT: Nurses will work to their full scope of practice to increase accessibility of EMA and LARC in rural Australia

A nurse-led model of care to improve access to contraception and abortion in rural general practice: Co-design with consumers and providers.

AIM: To describe key features of a co-designed nurse-led model of care intended to improve access to early medication abortion and long-acting reversible contraception in rural Australian general practice. DESIGN: Co-design methodology informed by the Experience-Based Co-Design Framework. METHODS: Consumers, nurses, physicians and key women's health stakeholders participated in a co-design workshop focused on the patient journey in seeking contraception or abortion care. Data generated at the workshop were analysed using Braun and Clarkes' six-step process for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-two participants took part in the co-design workshop. Key recommendations regarding setting up the model included: raising awareness of the early medication abortion and contraceptive implant services, providing flexible booking options, ensuring appointment availability, providing training for reception staff and fostering good relationships with relevant local services. Recommendations for implementing the model were also identified, including the provision of accessible information, patient-approved communication processes that ensure privacy and safety, establishing roles and responsibilities, supporting consumer autonomy and having clear pathways for referrals and complications. CONCLUSION: Our approach to experience-based co-design ensured that consumer experiences, values and priorities, together with practitioner insights, were central to the development of a nurse-led model of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The co-designed nurse-led model of care for contraception and medication abortion is one strategy to increase access to these essential reproductive health services, particularly in rural areas, while providing an opportunity for nurses to work to their full scope of practice. IMPACT: Nurse-led care has gained global recognition as an effective strategy to promote equitable access to sexual and reproductive healthcare. Still, nurse-led contraception and abortion have yet to be implemented andevaluated in Australian general practice. This study will inform the model of care to be implemented and evaluated as part of the ORIENT trial to be completed in 2025. REPORTING METHOD: Reported in line with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two consumer representatives contributed to the development of the co-design methodology as members of the ORIENT Intervention Advisory Group Governance Committee

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

Improving rural and regional access to long-acting reversible contraception and medical abortion through nurse-led models of care, task-sharing and telehealth (ORIENT): a protocol for a stepped-wedge pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial in Australian general practice

INTRODUCTION: Women living in rural and regional Australia often experience difficulties in accessing long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and medical abortion services. Nurse-led models of care can improve access to these services but have not been evaluated in Australian general practice. The primary aim of the ORIENT trial (ImprOving Rural and regIonal accEss to long acting reversible contraceptioN and medical abortion through nurse-led models of care, Tasksharing and telehealth) is to assess the effectiveness of a nurse-led model of care in general practice at increasing uptake of LARC and improving access to medical abortion in rural and regional areas. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ORIENT is a stepped-wedge pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We will enrol 32 general practices (clusters) in rural or regional Australia, that have at least two general practitioners, one practice nurse and one practice manager. The nurse-led model of care (the intervention) will be codesigned with key women's health stakeholders. Clusters will be randomised to implement the model sequentially, with the comparator being usual care. Clusters will receive implementation support through clinical upskilling, educational outreach and engagement in an online community of practice. The primary outcome is the change in the rate of LARC prescribing comparing control and intervention phases; secondary outcomes include change in the rate of medical abortion prescribing and provision of related telehealth services. A within-trial economic analysis will determine the relative costs and benefits of the model on the prescribing rates of LARC and medical abortion compared with usual care. A realist evaluation will provide contextual information regarding model implementation informing considerations for scale-up. Supporting nurses to work to their full scope of practice has the potential to increase LARC and medical abortion access in rural and regional Australia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 29476). Findings will be disseminated via multiple avenues including a knowledge exchange workshop, policy briefs, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000086763)