ArticleSexually transmitted infections2006
Public involvement in modernising genitourinary medicine clinics: using general public and patient opinion to influence models of service delivery.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing for sexually transmitted infections among students: a discrete choice experiment of service preferences.BMJ open · 2013Article
- Understanding patient choices for attending sexually transmitted infection testing services: a qualitative study.Sexually transmitted infections · 2012Article
- Assessing user preferences for sexually transmitted infection testing services: a discrete choice experiment.Sexually transmitted infections · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine which of the options available to modernise genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in the UK are most acceptable to patients and potential patients; to assess whether the views of a general population sample differ from those of clinic attenders. .
methodsA questionnaire was used to explore the acceptability of different ways of delivering sexual healthcare including the potential trade-off between convenience/range of services with cost/staffing constraints. Potential differences in responses by age, sex, ethnicity and current attendance at a GUM clinic were evaluated using multivariate analysis.
results542 respondents in the community and 202 clinic attenders provided responses. Delivery of sexual healthcare by specialist nurses and general practitioners was acceptable to 81% and 72% of interviewees, respectively, assuming common protocols were adhered to. The proportion of individuals who would accept a consultation with a nurse increased to 91% if the waiting time for an appointment could be reduced as a result. Men were less likely to accept a consultation with a nurse (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.79), and Asian (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.64) and other black (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.87) ethnic groups were less likely to accept a consultation with a general practitioner. 44% of patients preferred walk-in clinics even if waiting times for an appointment were reduced to 48 h.
conclusionDelivery of sexual healthcare by nurses and general practitioners was generally found to be acceptable, although this varies by patient sex and ethnicity. Some differences exist between the preferences of a general population sample compared with clinic attenders, but overall there is a high level of concordance. Walk-in clinics remain a popular choice even when appointment waiting times are short.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.