Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40924997›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Evaluating the Implementation of Online Postal Self-Sampling for Sexually Transmitted Infections in England: Multisite Qualitative Study.

Tommer Spence, Jo Gibbs, Geoff Wong, Alison Howarth, Andrew Copas, David Crundwell, Louise Jackson, Catherine H Mercer, Hamish Mohammed, Vanessa Apea and 7 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

17 authors.

Tommer SpenceUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2717-3625
Jo GibbsUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5696-0260
Geoff WongUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5384-4157
Alison HowarthUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0597-6614
Andrew CopasUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8968-5963
David CrundwellDavid Crundwell Corporate Affairs and Private Equity, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0024-3512
Louise JacksonUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8492-0020
Catherine H MercerUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4220-5034
Hamish MohammedUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2060-7286
Vanessa ApeaBarts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0533-8292
Sara DayChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6457-3877
Jonathan RossUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4193-6919
Ann SullivanChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7532-9562
Andrew WinterNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8293-9462
Claire DewsnapSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8162-6547
Fiona M BurnsUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9105-2441
Jessica SheringhamUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3468-129X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline postal self-sampling (OPSS) allows service users to screen for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by ordering a self-sampling kit online, taking their own samples, returning them to a laboratory for testing, and receiving their results remotely. OPSS availability and use has increased in both the United Kingdom and globally the past decade but has been adopted in different regions of England at different times, with different models of delivery. It is not known why certain models were decided on or how implementation strategies have influenced outcomes, including the sustainability of OPSS in sexual health service delivery.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the implementation of OPSS in 3 case study areas of England, with a focus on the sustainability of implementation and the relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes.

methodsQualitative data collection methods were used: interviews with staff and stakeholders involved in the implementation and delivery of OPSS, analysis of local implementation and national policy documents, and observations in sexual health clinics. Analysis of interviews and observations was undertaken using qualitative implementation science frameworks, including normalization process theory, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and the major system change framework. Documentary sources were used primarily to map processes over time and triangulate against interview and observational evidence.

resultsAcross the 3 case study areas, 60 staff and stakeholders were interviewed, 12 observations were conducted, and data from 86 documents were collated. Rather than being a discrete digital health intervention, we found that OPSS was part of-or occurred parallel to-major system changes in all areas. These changes were driven by budgetary pressures in all areas, but there was variation in other objectives used to rationalize the decision to adopt. The financial context and organizational relationships in each area determined the implementation strategies available to decision makers, how these strategies were enacted, and, in turn, led to different outcomes at different time points. OPSS implementation was not a one-off outcome but an ongoing process in response to changes in context, which in turn affected how staff perceived and engaged with OPSS. The COVID-19 pandemic had profound but divergent effects on OPSS implementation in each area, accelerating it in some contexts and reversing it in others.

conclusionsIn this multisite case study, OPSS implementation was part of systems change to address a wider problem of insufficient funding to deliver sexual health care. Decisions about implementing OPSS were made before sufficient evidence was available to effectively guide the process. The resultant unintended consequences need acknowledgment to enable future commissioners and sexual health services to optimize sexual health service provision. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067170.

Indexed as

Postal ServiceSexually Transmitted DiseasesCOVID-19EnglandHumansInternetQualitative Researchdigital healthimplementationsexual health servicessexually transmitted infectionssustainability

Identifiers

PMID40924997
PMCPMC12457857

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.