Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32471931›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2020

How to increase chlamydia testing in primary care: a qualitative exploration with young people and application of a meta-theoretical model.

Lorraine K McDonagh, Hannah Harwood, John M Saunders, Jackie A Cassell, Greta Rait

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Lorraine K McDonaghResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK l.mcdonagh@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5122-0156
Hannah HarwoodInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
John M SaundersNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Blood Borne and Sexually Transmitted Infections at University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9658-7798
Jackie A CassellNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Blood Borne and Sexually Transmitted Infections at University College London, London, UK.
Greta RaitResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to explore young people's perspectives barriers to chlamydia testing in general practice and potential intervention functions and implementation strategies to overcome identified barriers, using a meta-theoretical framework (the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW)).

methodsTwenty-eight semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 16-24 year olds from across the UK. Purposive and convenience sampling methods were used (eg, youth organisations, charities, online platforms and chain-referrals). An inductive thematic analysis was first conducted, followed by thematic categorisation using the BCW.

resultsParticipants identified several barriers to testing: conducting self-sampling inaccurately (physical capability); lack of information and awareness (psychological capability); testing not seen as a priority and perceived low risk (reflective motivation); embarrassment, fear and guilt (automatic motivation); the UK primary care context and location of toilets (physical opportunity) and stigma (social opportunity). Potential intervention functions raised by participants included education (eg, increase awareness of chlamydia); persuasion (eg, use of imagery/data to alter beliefs); environmental restructuring (eg, alternative sampling methods) and modelling (eg, credible sources such as celebrities). Potential implementation strategies and policy categories discussed were communication and marketing (eg, social media); service provision (eg, introduction of a young person's health-check) and guidelines (eg, standard questions for healthcare providers).

conclusionsThe BCW provided a useful framework for conceptually exploring the wide range of barriers to testing identified and possible intervention functions and policy categories to overcome said barriers. While greater education and awareness and expanded opportunities for testing were considered important, this alone will not bring about dramatic increases in testing. A societal and structural shift towards the normalisation of chlamydia testing is needed, alongside approaches which recognise the heterogeneity of this population. To ensure optimal and inclusive healthcare, researchers, clinicians and policy makers alike must consider patient diversity and the wider health issues affecting all young people.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChlamydiaChlamydia InfectionsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMass ScreeningModels, TheoreticalPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchSocial StigmaUnited KingdomYoung Adultadolescentbehavioural sciencechlamydia infectiongeneral practicequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID32471931
PMCPMC7677464

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.