Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Family Physician logoLink to Canadian Family Physician
. 1995 Feb;41:228–236.

Screening guidelines for Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Evaluating physician awareness, agreement, and use.

K Weyman 1, A R Lanning 1
PMCID: PMC2146240  PMID: 7734996

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether physicians were aware of, agreed with, and followed the "1989 Canadian Guidelines for Screening for Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection "as they applied to screening asymptomatic women. DESIGN. A survey consisting of direct questions and case scenarios was scored according to the responses given in the guidelines. SETTING. Six hospital family practice teaching units in downtown Toronto. PARTICIPANTS. Of 153 staff physicians and residents surveyed (all staff and residents registered with the Department of Family and Community Medicine of the University of Toronto for the 1990-1991 academic year), a volunteer sample of 118 responded to a questionnaire through the mail. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES. Reported awareness, agreement, and use of C trachomatis guidelines for screening asymptomatic women were analyzed using frequency distributions and cross-tabulations. RESULTS. Most (69%) respondents were unaware of the guidelines. Of those who were aware, 46% agreed with the guidelines and 39% claimed to follow the guidelines. Staff physicians appeared to be more aware of guidelines than family medicine residents (P = 0.0175, psi 2 = 11.98); P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. There was no statistically significant association between total scores and physicians' reported awareness of guidelines (P = 0.2287, psi 2 = 4.321). CONCLUSIONS. Most physicians in the sample were unaware of the guidelines. Of physicians who reported awareness of the guidelines, less than half agreed with or routinely followed them. Better methods of influencing physician behaviour must be developed before more guidelines are designed and distributed.

Full text

PDF
228

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Buhaug H., Skjeldestad F. E., Backe B., Dalen A. Cost effectiveness of testing for chlamydial infections in asymptomatic women. Med Care. 1989 Aug;27(8):833–841. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198908000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fowler G., Mant D., Fuller A., Jones L. The "Help Your Patient Stop" initiative. Evaluation of smoking prevalence and dissemination of WHO/UICC guidelines in UK general practice. Lancet. 1989 Jun 3;1(8649):1253–1255. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)92342-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gully P. R., Rwetsiba D. K. Chlamydial infection in Canada. Can Dis Wkly Rep. 1991 Dec 21;17(51):282-3, 286-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Handsfield H. H., Jasman L. L., Roberts P. L., Hanson V. W., Kothenbeutel R. L., Stamm W. E. Criteria for selective screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women attending family planning clinics. JAMA. 1986 Apr 4;255(13):1730–1734. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jones R. B., Mammel J. B., Shepard M. K., Fisher R. R. Recovery of Chlamydia trachomatis from the endometrium of women at risk for chlamydial infection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Jul;155(1):35–39. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(86)90073-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kosecoff J., Kanouse D. E., Rogers W. H., McCloskey L., Winslow C. M., Brook R. H. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice. JAMA. 1987 Nov 20;258(19):2708–2713. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lomas J., Anderson G. M., Domnick-Pierre K., Vayda E., Enkin M. W., Hannah W. J. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med. 1989 Nov 9;321(19):1306–1311. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198911093211906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lomas J. Words without action? The production, dissemination, and impact of consensus recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health. 1991;12:41–65. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.12.050191.000353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Marana R., Lucisano A., Leone F., Sanna A., Del'Acqua S., Mancuso S. High prevalence of silent chlamydia colonization of the tubal mucosa in infertile women. Fertil Steril. 1990 Feb;53(2):354–356. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)53295-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Massé R., Laperrière H., Rousseau H., Lefebvre J., Remis R. S. Chlamydia trachomatis cervical infection: prevalence and determinants among women presenting for routine gynecologic examination. CMAJ. 1991 Oct 15;145(8):953–961. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McDougall L., Mathias R. G., O'Connor B. A., Bowie W. R. Management of Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections: reported practices of primary care physicians. CMAJ. 1992 Mar 1;146(5):715–721. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McPhee S. J., Richard R. J., Solkowitz S. N. Performance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: comparison with the 1980 American Cancer Society Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 1986 Sep-Oct;1(5):275–281. doi: 10.1007/BF02596202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nettleman M. D., Jones R. B. Cost-effectiveness of screening women at moderate risk for genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis. JAMA. 1988 Jul 8;260(2):207–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Phillips R. S., Aronson M. D., Taylor W. C., Safran C. Should tests for Chlamydia trachomatis cervical infection be done during routine gynecologic visits? An analysis of the costs of alternative strategies. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Aug;107(2):188–194. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sellors J. W., Mahony J. B., Jang D., Pickard L., Goldsmith C. H., Gafni A., Chernesky M. A. Comparison of cervical, urethral, and urine specimens for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in women. J Infect Dis. 1991 Jul;164(1):205–208. doi: 10.1093/infdis/164.1.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sellors J. W., Pickard L., Gafni A., Goldsmith C. H., Jang D., Mahony J. B., Chernesky M. A. Effectiveness and efficiency of selective vs universal screening for chlamydial infection in sexually active young women. Arch Intern Med. 1992 Sep;152(9):1837–1844. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Thompson S. E., Washington A. E. Epidemiology of sexually transmitted Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Epidemiol Rev. 1983;5:96–123. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Todd M. J., Estany A., McLaren R. Costs of pelvic inflammatory disease and associated sequelae in Canada. Can Dis Wkly Rep. 1988 Nov 12;14(45):206–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Walters M. D., Eddy C. A., Gibbs R. S., Schachter J., Holden A. E., Pauerstein C. J. Antibodies to Chlamydia trachomatis and risk for tubal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Oct;159(4):942–946. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(88)80177-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Washington A. E., Johnson R. E., Sanders L. L., Jr Chlamydia trachomatis infections in the United States. What are they costing us? JAMA. 1987 Apr 17;257(15):2070–2072. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Woo B., Woo B., Cook E. F., Weisberg M., Goldman L. Screening procedures in the asymptomatic adult. Comparison of physicians' recommendations, patients' desires, published guidelines, and actual practice. JAMA. 1985 Sep 20;254(11):1480–1484. doi: 10.1001/jama.254.11.1480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Family Physician are provided here courtesy of College of Family Physicians of Canada

RESOURCES