Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysis
Abstract Objectives: Chlamydia screening is widely advocated. General practice registrars are an important stage of clinical behaviour development. This study aimed to determine rates of, and factors associated with, registrars' chlamydia testing including asymptomatic screening. Methods: A cro...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2014-12-01
|
| Series: | Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12261 |
| _version_ | 1797712449656324096 |
|---|---|
| author | Allison Thomson Simon Morgan Kim Henderson Amanda Tapley Neil Spike John Scott Mieke van Driel Parker Magin |
| author_facet | Allison Thomson Simon Morgan Kim Henderson Amanda Tapley Neil Spike John Scott Mieke van Driel Parker Magin |
| author_sort | Allison Thomson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objectives: Chlamydia screening is widely advocated. General practice registrars are an important stage of clinical behaviour development. This study aimed to determine rates of, and factors associated with, registrars' chlamydia testing including asymptomatic screening. Methods: A cross‐sectional analysis of data from Registrars Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT), a cohort study of registrars' consultations. Registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations in each GP‐term of training. Outcome factors were chlamydia testing, asymptomatic screening and doctor‐initiated screening. Results: Testing occurred in 2.5% of 29,112 consultations (398 registrars) and in 5.8% of patients aged 15–25. Asymptomatic screening comprised 47.5% of chlamydia tests, and 55.6% of screening tests were doctor‐initiated. Chlamydia testing was associated with female gender of doctor and patient, younger patient age, and patients new to doctor or practice. Asymptomatic screening was associated with practices where patients incur no fees, and in patients new to doctor or practice. Screening of female patients was more often doctor‐initiated. Conclusions: GP registrars screen for chlamydia disproportionately in younger females and new patients. Implications: Our findings highlight potential opportunities to improve uptake of screening for chlamydia, including targeted education and training for registrars, campaigns targeting male patients, and addressing financial barriers to accessing screening services. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T07:22:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2aa2975eb46046e084a298531b071998 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1326-0200 1753-6405 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T07:22:02Z |
| publishDate | 2014-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-2aa2975eb46046e084a298531b0719982023-09-02T22:19:41ZengElsevierAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health1326-02001753-64052014-12-0138654254710.1111/1753-6405.12261Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysisAllison Thomson0Simon Morgan1Kim Henderson2Amanda Tapley3Neil Spike4John Scott5Mieke van Driel6Parker Magin7Discipline of General Practice, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, New South WalesGeneral Practice Training Valley to Coast, New South WalesGeneral Practice Training Valley to Coast, New South WalesGeneral Practice Training Valley to Coast, New South WalesVictorian Metropolitan AllianceGeneral Practice Training Valley to Coast, New South WalesDiscipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, The University of QueenslandDiscipline of General Practice, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, New South WalesAbstract Objectives: Chlamydia screening is widely advocated. General practice registrars are an important stage of clinical behaviour development. This study aimed to determine rates of, and factors associated with, registrars' chlamydia testing including asymptomatic screening. Methods: A cross‐sectional analysis of data from Registrars Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT), a cohort study of registrars' consultations. Registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations in each GP‐term of training. Outcome factors were chlamydia testing, asymptomatic screening and doctor‐initiated screening. Results: Testing occurred in 2.5% of 29,112 consultations (398 registrars) and in 5.8% of patients aged 15–25. Asymptomatic screening comprised 47.5% of chlamydia tests, and 55.6% of screening tests were doctor‐initiated. Chlamydia testing was associated with female gender of doctor and patient, younger patient age, and patients new to doctor or practice. Asymptomatic screening was associated with practices where patients incur no fees, and in patients new to doctor or practice. Screening of female patients was more often doctor‐initiated. Conclusions: GP registrars screen for chlamydia disproportionately in younger females and new patients. Implications: Our findings highlight potential opportunities to improve uptake of screening for chlamydia, including targeted education and training for registrars, campaigns targeting male patients, and addressing financial barriers to accessing screening services.https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12261chlamydiascreeninggeneral practicereproductive healthgraduate medical education |
| spellingShingle | Allison Thomson Simon Morgan Kim Henderson Amanda Tapley Neil Spike John Scott Mieke van Driel Parker Magin Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysis Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health chlamydia screening general practice reproductive health graduate medical education |
| title | Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysis |
| title_full | Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysis |
| title_fullStr | Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysis |
| title_short | Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysis |
| title_sort | testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice a cross sectional analysis |
| topic | chlamydia screening general practice reproductive health graduate medical education |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12261 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT allisonthomson testingandscreeningforchlamydiaingeneralpracticeacrosssectionalanalysis AT simonmorgan testingandscreeningforchlamydiaingeneralpracticeacrosssectionalanalysis AT kimhenderson testingandscreeningforchlamydiaingeneralpracticeacrosssectionalanalysis AT amandatapley testingandscreeningforchlamydiaingeneralpracticeacrosssectionalanalysis AT neilspike testingandscreeningforchlamydiaingeneralpracticeacrosssectionalanalysis AT johnscott testingandscreeningforchlamydiaingeneralpracticeacrosssectionalanalysis AT miekevandriel testingandscreeningforchlamydiaingeneralpracticeacrosssectionalanalysis AT parkermagin testingandscreeningforchlamydiaingeneralpracticeacrosssectionalanalysis |