Testing and screening for chlamydia in general practice: a cross‐sectional analysis. (12th October 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thomson, Allison; Morgan, Simon; Henderson, Kim; Tapley, Amanda; Spike, Neil; Scott, John; van Driel, Mieke; Magin, Parker
• Is Part Of: Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. Volume 38:Number 6(2014)
• Page Start: 542
• Page End: 547
• Publication Date: 2014-10-12
• Subjects: Public health -- Australia -- Periodicals; Public health -- New Zealand -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Australia -- Periodicals; Medical care -- New Zealand -- Periodicals; 362.10993
• DOI: 10.1111/1753-6405.12261
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1326-0200

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <p> <bold>Objectives:</bold> 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.</p> <p> <bold>Methods:</bold> 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.</p> <p> <bold>Results:</bold> 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.</p> <p> <bold>Conclusions:</bold> GP registrars screen for chlamydia disproportionately in younger females and new patients.</p> <p> <bold>Implications:</bold> 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.</p> </abstract>