Abstract
Objectives: To explore the reasons for the 40-fold variation in diagnostic testing for genital Chlamydia trachomatis by general practices.
Methods: A qualitative study with focus groups. We randomly selected urban and rural high and low testing practices served by Bristol, Hereford, and Gloucester microbiology laboratories. Open questions were asked about the investigation of C trachomatis in men and women in different clinical contexts.
Results: The high and low testing practices did not differ in their age/sex make-up or by deprivation indices. There were major differences between high and low chlamydia testing practices. Low testing practices knew very little about the epidemiology and presentation of genital chlamydia infection and did not consider it in their differential diagnosis of genitourinary symptoms until patients had consulted several times. Low testers were less aware that chlamydia was usually asymptomatic, thought it was an inner city problem, and had poor knowledge of how to take diagnostic specimens. High testing practices either had a general practitioner with an interest in sexual health or a practice nurse who had completed specialist training in family planning. High testing practices were more cognizant of the symptoms and signs of chlamydia and always considered it in their differential diagnosis of genitourinary symptoms, including patients attending family planning clinics.
Conclusions: Any programme to increase chlamydia testing in primary care must be accompanied by an education and awareness programme especially targeted at low testing practices. This will need to include information about the benefits of testing and who, when, and how to test.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (65.3 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Duncan B., Hart G., Scoular A., Bigrigg A. Qualitative analysis of psychosocial impact of diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis: implications for screening. BMJ. 2001 Jan 27;322(7280):195–199. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7280.195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fenton K. A., Korovessis C., Johnson A. M., McCadden A., McManus S., Wellings K., Mercer C. H., Carder C., Copas A. J., Nanchahal K. Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Lancet. 2001 Dec 1;358(9296):1851–1854. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06886-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pimenta J. M., Catchpole M., Rogers P. A., Perkins E., Jackson N., Carlisle C., Randall S., Hopwood J., Hewitt G., Underhill G. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):16–21. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.1.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Priest P., Yudkin P., McNulty C., Mant D. Antibacterial prescribing and antibacterial resistance in English general practice: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2001 Nov 3;323(7320):1037–1041. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7320.1037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ross J. D., Sutherland S., Coia J. Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in primary care. BMJ. 1996 Nov 9;313(7066):1192–1193. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1192a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman H. L., Potterat J. J., Dukes R. L., Muth J. B., Zimmerman H. P., Fogle J. S., Pratts C. I. Epidemiologic differences between chlamydia and gonorrhea. Am J Public Health. 1990 Nov;80(11):1338–1342. doi: 10.2105/ajph.80.11.1338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]