ArticleBMJ open2017
Qualitative interviews with healthcare staff in four European countries to inform adaptation of an intervention to increase chlamydia testing.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Primary care integration of sexual and reproductive health services for chlamydia testing across WHO-Europe: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2018Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the needs of primary healthcare general practice (GP) staff, stakeholders and trainers to inform the adaptation of a locally successful complex intervention (Chlamydia Intervention Randomised Trial (CIRT)) aimed at increasing chlamydia testing within primary healthcare within South West England to three EU countries (Estonia, France and Sweden) and throughout England.
designQualitative interviews.
settingEuropean primary healthcare in England, France, Sweden and Estonia with a range of chlamydia screening provision in 2013.
participants45 GP staff, 13 trainers and 18 stakeholders. INTERVIEWS: The iterative interview schedule explored participants' personal attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural controls around provision of chlamydia testing, sexual health services and training in general practice. Researchers used a common thematic analysis.
resultsFindings were similar across all countries. Most participants agreed that chlamydia testing and sexual health services should be offered in general practice. There was no culture of GP staff routinely offering opportunistic chlamydia testing or sexual health advice, and due to other priorities, participants reported this would be challenging. All participants indicated that the CIRT workshop covering chlamydia testing and sexual health would be useful if practice based, included all practice staff and action planning, and was adequately resourced. Participants suggested minor adaptations to CIRT to suit their country's health services.
conclusionsA common complex intervention can be adapted for use across Europe, despite varied sexual health provision. The intervention (ChlamydiA Testing Training in Europe (CATTE)) should comprise: a staff workshop covering sexual health and chlamydia testing rates and procedures, action planning and patient materials and staff reminders via computer prompts, emails or newsletters, with testing feedback through practice champions. CATTE materials are available at: www.STItraining.eu.
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.