ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025
General practice chlamydia testing: a qualitative study of staff approaches using behavioural change theory.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChlamydia is the most diagnosed bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) in England, but opportunistic testing remains low in general practice despite high prevalence among young people. Attempts to increase testing have been met with little success; therefore, there is a need to explore why rates remain low and how this may be improved.
aimTo explore general practice staff perceptions of opportunistic chlamydia testing, including barriers, facilitators, interventions, and policies, using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). DESIGN &
settingQualitative interviews and focus groups were undertaken with general practice staff in England.
methodTwenty-three semi-structured individual interviews and seven focus groups with general practice staff were conducted. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, followed by thematic categorisation onto the BCW.
resultsParticipants identified several barriers to chlamydia testing corresponding with BCW components, including low perceived knowledge (psychological capability), general practice context (physical opportunity), cultural norms (social opportunity), testing not prioritised (reflective motivation), and concerns about patient reactions (automatic motivation). Proposed intervention functions included education, persuasion (for example, posters), incentivisation (for example, financial incentives), and environmental restructuring (for example, computer reminders). Potential policy categories discussed were communication and marketing (for example, campaigns) and service provision (for example, GP drop-in sessions at other venues).
conclusionThis study identified barriers to chlamydia testing in English general practice and potential ways to address these issues, contributing new insights to existing literature. This research can be utilised to design multi-component, impactful interventions to increase testing in general practice and ultimately reduce harm posed by chlamydia infections.
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.