An online study combining the constructs from the theory of planned behaviour and protection motivation theory in predicting intention to test for chlamydia in two testing contexts. Issue 1 (2nd January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Powell, Rachael; Pattison, Helen M.; Francis, Jill J.
• Is Part Of: Psychology, health & medicine. Volume 21:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 38
• Page End: 51
• Publication Date: 2016-01-02
• Subjects: chlamydia -- Protection Motivation Theory -- Theory of Planned Behaviour -- self-testing -- home-testing; Medicine and psychology -- Periodicals; Clinical health psychology -- Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2015.1034733
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1354-8506

Abstract

Abstract : Chlamydia is a common sexually transmitted infection that has potentially serious consequences unless detected and treated early. The health service in the UK offers clinic-based testing for chlamydia but uptake is low. Identifying the predictors of testing behaviours may inform interventions to increase uptake. Self-tests for chlamydia may facilitate testing and treatment in people who avoid clinic-based testing. Self-testing and being tested by a health care professional (HCP) involve two contrasting contexts that may influence testing behaviour. However, little is known about how predictors of behaviour differ as a function of context. In this study, theoretical models of behaviour were used to assess factors that may predict intention to test in two different contexts: self-testing and being tested by a HCP. Individuals searching for or reading about chlamydia testing online were recruited using Google Adwords. Participants completed an online questionnaire that addressed previous testing behaviour and measured constructs of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Protection Motivation Theory, which propose a total of eight possible predictors of intention. The questionnaire was completed by 310 participants. Sufficient data for multiple regression were provided by 102 and 118 respondents for self-testing and testing by a HCP respectively. Intention to self-test was predicted by vulnerability and self-efficacy, with a trend-level effect for response efficacy. Intention to be tested by a HCP was predicted by vulnerability, attitude and subjective norm. Thus, intentions to carry out two testing behaviours with very similar goals can have different predictors depending on test context. We conclude that interventions to increase self-testing should be based on evidence specifically related to test context.