Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33302884›Full record

Trial reportBMC family practice2020

Management of chlamydia and gonorrhoea infections diagnosed in primary care using a centralised nurse-led telephone-based service: mixed methods evaluation.

Jeremy Horwood, Emer Brangan, Petra Manley, Paddy Horner, Peter Muir, Paul North, John Macleod

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jeremy HorwoodCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. j.horwood@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7092-4960
Emer BranganDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Petra ManleyField Service, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Bristol, UK.
Paddy HornerNIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Peter MuirPublic Health England South West Regional Laboratory, Bristol, UK.
Paul NorthPublic Health England South West Regional Laboratory, Bristol, UK.
John MacleodCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Public Health England · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1National Institute for Health Research P241
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUp to 18% of genital Chlamydia infections and 9% of Gonorrhoea infections in England are diagnosed in Primary Care. Evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of these cases are not managed appropriately in line with national guidelines. With the increase in sexually transmitted infections and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, their timely and appropriate treatment is a priority. We investigated feasibility and acceptability of extending the National Chlamydia Screening Programme's centralised, nurse-led, telephone management (NLTM) as an option for management of all cases of chlamydia and gonorrhoea diagnosed in Primary Care.

methodsRandomised feasibility trial in 11 practices in Bristol with nested qualitative study. In intervention practices patients and health care providers (HCPs) had the option of choosing NLTM or usual care for all patients tested for Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea. In control practices patients received usual care.

resultsOne thousand one hundred fifty-four Chlamydia/gonorrhoea tests took place during the 6-month study, with a chlamydia positivity rate of 2.6% and gonorrhoea positivity rate of 0.8%. The NLTM managed 335 patients. Interviews were conducted with sixteen HCPs (11 GPs, 5 nurses) and 12 patients (8 female). HCPs were positive about the NLTM, welcomed the partner notification service, though requested more timely feedback on the management of their patients. Explaining the NLTM to patients didn't negatively impact on consultations. Patients found the NLTM acceptable, more convenient and provided greater anonymity than usual care. Patients appreciated getting a text message regarding a negative result and valued talking to a sexual health specialist about positive results.

conclusionExtension of this established NLTM intervention to a greater proportion of patients was both feasible and acceptable to both patients and HCP, could provide a better service for patients, whilst decreasing primacy care workload. The study provides evidence to support the wider implementation of this NLTM approach to managing chlamydia and gonorrhoea diagnosed in primary care.

Indexed as

ChlamydiaChlamydia InfectionsGonorrheaFemaleHumansNurse's RolePrimary Health CareTelephoneChlamydiaGeneral practiceGonorrhoeaPartner notificationQualitative researchSexual health

Identifiers

PMID33302884
PMCPMC7731735
OpenAlexW3107612108

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.