Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27484823›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2016

Service evaluation of an educational intervention to improve sexual health services in primary care implemented using a step-wedge design: analysis of chlamydia testing and diagnosis rate changes.

Katy Town, Cliodna A M McNulty, Ellie J Ricketts, Thomas Hartney, Anthony Nardone, Kate A Folkard, Andre Charlett, J Kevin Dunbar

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katy TownHIV/STI Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK. Katy.town@phe.gov.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3481-5019
Cliodna A M McNultyPublic Health England Primary Care Unit, Microbiology Department, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
Ellie J RickettsPublic Health England Primary Care Unit, Microbiology Department, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
Thomas HartneyHIV/STI Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Anthony NardoneHIV/STI Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Kate A FolkardHIV/STI Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Andre CharlettStatistics, Modelling and Economics Department, Public Health England, 61 Colindale Avenue, NW9 5EQ, London, UK.
J Kevin DunbarHIV/STI Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Public Health England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding sexual health services in primary care is an essential step towards universal provision. However they are not offered consistently. We conducted a national pilot of an educational intervention to improve staff's skills and confidence to increase chlamydia testing rates and provide condoms with contraceptive information plus HIV testing according to national guidelines, known as 3Cs&HIV. The effectiveness of the pilot on chlamydia testing and diagnosis rates in general practice was evaluated.

methodsThe pilot was implemented using a step-wedge design over three phases during 2013 and 2014 in England. The intervention combined educational workshops with posters, testing performance feedback and continuous support. Chlamydia testing and diagnosis rates in participating general practices during the control and intervention periods were compared adjusting for seasonal trends in chlamydia testing and differences in practice size. Intervention effect modification was assessed for the following general practice characteristics: chlamydia testing rate compared to national median, number of general practice staff employed, payment for chlamydia screening, practice urban/rurality classification, and proximity to sexual health clinics.

resultsThe 460 participating practices conducted 26,021 tests in the control period and 18,797 tests during the intervention period. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in the unadjusted median tests and diagnoses per month per practice after receiving training: 2.7 vs 2.7; 0.1 vs 0.1. Multivariable negative binomial regression analysis found no significant change in overall testing or diagnoses post-intervention (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.01, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.07, P = 0.72; 0.98 CI 0.84-1.15, P = 0.84, respectively). Stratified analysis showed testing increased significantly in practices where payments were in place prior to the intervention (IRR 2.12 CI 1.41-3.18, P < 0.001) and in practices with 6-15 staff (6-10 GPs IRR 1.35 (1.07-1.71), P = 0.012; 11-15 GPs IRR 1.37 (1.09-1.73), P = 0.007).

conclusionThis national pilot of short educational training sessions found no overall effect on chlamydia testing in primary care. However, in certain sub-groups chlamydia testing rates increased due to the intervention. This demonstrates the importance of piloting and evaluating any service improvement intervention to assess the impact before widespread implementation, and the need for detailed understanding of local services in order to select effective interventions.

Indexed as

Health ServicesInservice TrainingMass ScreeningPrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultChlamydiaChlamydia InfectionsCondomsDelivery of Health CareEnglandFamily PracticeGeneral PracticeHumansProgram EvaluationReproductive HealthChlamydia screeningCondomsContraceptionEducationHIV testingImplementationPilotPrimary careService evaluationStep-wedge

Identifiers

PMID27484823
PMCPMC4969638
OpenAlexW2506649367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.