Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar 21;18(1):43.
doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0618-0.

Exploring why a complex intervention piloted in general practices did not result in an increase in chlamydia screening and diagnosis: a qualitative evaluation using the fidelity of implementation model

Affiliations

Exploring why a complex intervention piloted in general practices did not result in an increase in chlamydia screening and diagnosis: a qualitative evaluation using the fidelity of implementation model

R Allison et al. BMC Fam Pract. .

Abstract

Background: Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) is the most commonly diagnosed sexually transmitted infection (STI) in England; approximately 70% of diagnoses are in sexually active young adults aged under 25. To facilitate opportunistic chlamydia screening in general practice, a complex intervention, based on a previously successful Chlamydia Intervention Randomised Trial (CIRT), was piloted in England. The modified intervention (3Cs and HIV) aimed to encourage general practice staff to routinely offer chlamydia testing to all 15-24 year olds regardless of the type of consultation. However, when the 3Cs (chlamydia screening, signposting to contraceptive services, free condoms) and HIV was offered to a large number of general practitioner (GP) surgeries across England, chlamydia screening was not significantly increased. This qualitative evaluation addresses the following aims: a) Explore why the modified intervention did not increase screening across all general practices. b) Suggest recommendations for future intervention implementation.

Methods: Phone interviews were carried out with 26 practice staff, at least 5 months after their initial educational workshop, exploring their opinions on the workshop and intervention implementation in the real world setting. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed and further examined using the fidelity of implementation model.

Results: Participants who attended had a positive attitude towards the workshops, but attendee numbers were low. Often, the intervention content, as detailed in the educational workshops, was not adhered to: practice staff were unaware of any on-going trainer support; computer prompts were only added to the female contraception template; patients were not encouraged to complete the test immediately; complete chlamydia kits were not always readily available to the clinicians; and videos and posters were not utilised. Staff reported that financial incentives, themselves, were not a motivator; competing priorities and time were identified as major barriers.

Conclusion: Not adhering to the exact intervention model may explain the lack of significant increases in chlamydia screening. To increase fidelity of implementation outside of Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) conditions, and consequently, improve likelihood of increased screening, future public health interventions in general practices need to have: more specific action planning within the educational workshop; computer prompts added to systems and used; all staff attending the workshop; and on-going practice staff support with feedback of progress on screening and diagnosis rates fed back to all staff.

Keywords: Adherence; Chlamydia; Educational intervention; Evaluation; Fidelity; General practice; Implementation; Qualitative; Testing; Training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The 3Cs and HIV intervention with the components that aim to increase chlamydia screening and diagnosis rate highlighted in red
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Modified logic model of how the suggested components of the intervention could have been implemented to increase chlamydia screening
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Modified conceptual framework for fidelity of implementation [20]

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Public Health England . Sexually transmitted infections and chlamydia screening in England, 2014. 2015.
    1. Akande V, Turner C, Horner P, Horne A, Pacey A. Impact of Chlamydia trachomatis in the reproductive setting: British Fertility Society Guidelines for practice. Hum Fertil. 2010;13(3):115–125. doi: 10.3109/14647273.2010.513893. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nwokolo NC, Dragovic B, Patel S, Tong CW, Barker G, Radcliffe K. 2015 UK national guideline for the management of infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. Int J STD AIDS. 2015;27:251–67. doi: 10.1177/0956462415615443. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tebb KP, Pantell RH, Wibbelsman CJ, Neuhaus JM, Tipton AC, Pecson SC, Pai-Dhungat M, Ko TH, Shafer MB. Screening sexually active adolescents for Chlamydia trachomatis: what about the boys? Am J Public Health. 2005;95(10):1806–1811. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.037507. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. LaMontagne D, Fenton K, Randall S, Anderson S, Carter P. Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening. Sex Transm Infect. 2004;80(5):335–341. doi: 10.1136/sti.2004.012856. - DOI - PMC - PubMed