Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15239912›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004

Barriers to opportunistic chlamydia testing in primary care.

Cliodna A M McNulty, Elaine Freeman, Jo Bowen, Julia Shefras, Kevin A Fenton

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. General practice chlamydia testing: a qualitative study of staff approaches using behavioural change theory.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cliodna A M McNultyHealth Protection Agency, Primary Care Unit, Microbiology Department, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester. jill.whiting@hpa.org.uk
Elaine Freeman
Jo Bowen
Julia Shefras
Kevin A Fenton
Gloucestershire Royal Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpportunistic testing and screening for genital chlamydia infection in sexually active women under the age of 25 years can lead to a reduction in chlamydia infection and its related morbidity.

aimsTo explore the barriers to testing for genital chlamydial infection in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study with focus groups.

settingRural and urban general practice in Southwest England.

methodsFocus groups were held with randomly selected high- and lowtesting general practices in Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and Avon. The high- and low-testing practices did not differ in their age/sex make-up, or by deprivation indices. Open questions were asked about the management of genitourinary symptoms and opportunistic testing for chlamydia. Data were collected and analysed concurrently until saturation occurred.

resultsAlthough staff from high test rate practices were much more aware of the evidence for opportunistic chlamydia testing and screening, none of the practices were happy to discuss chlamydia in a consultation unrelated to sexual health. The greatest barriers to opportunistic chlamydia testing and screening were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing, when and how to take specimens, lack of time, worries about discussing sexual health, and lack of guidance. Healthcare staff stated that any increased testing should be accompanied by clear, concise primary care trust guidance on when and how to test, including how to obtain informed consent and perform contact tracing. Staff felt that testing could be undertaken at family planning clinics or with cervical smears if patients received information before the consultation. Alternatively, in larger practices specific chlamydia clinics could be held.

conclusionThe Department of Health needs to be aware of the extreme pressures that primary care staff are under, and the potential barriers to any screening implementation. Efforts to increase chlamydia screening in this setting should be accompanied by clear guidance and education. Any chlamydia clinics or increased testing must have appropriate financial and staff resources. Genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics, or level three practices with GUM expertise, will need to be increased in parallel with testing in primary care to provide appropriate contact tracing and follow-up.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthChlamydia InfectionsEnglandFamily PracticeHumansMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareRural HealthUrban Health

Identifiers

PMID15239912
PMCPMC1324802
OpenAlexW2166588124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.