Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the "Test n Treat" trial.


Journal

BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Aug 2020
Historique:
received: 08 10 2019
accepted: 20 07 2020
entrez: 11 8 2020
pubmed: 11 8 2020
medline: 15 12 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Low uptake of sexually transmitted infection testing by sexually active young people is a worldwide public health problem. Screening in non-medical settings has been suggested as a method to improve uptake. The "Test n Treat" feasibility trial offered free, on-site rapid chlamydia/gonorrhoea tests with same day treatment for chlamydia (and gonorrhoea treatment at a local clinic,) to sexually active students (median age 17 years) at six technical colleges in London. Despite high rates of chlamydia (6% prevalence), uptake of testing was low (< 15%). In a qualitative study we explored the acceptability, including barriers and facilitators to uptake, of on-site chlamydia screening. In 2016-17 we conducted a qualitative study in the interpretative tradition using face to face or telephone semi-structured interviews with students (n = 26), teaching staff (n = 3) and field researchers (n = 4). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. From the student perspective, feelings of embarrassment and the potential for stigma were deterrents to sexually transmitted infection testing. While the non-medical setting was viewed as mitigating against stigma, for some students volunteering to be screened exposed them to detrimental judgements by their peers. A small financial incentive to be screened was regarded as legitimising volunteering in a non-discrediting way. Staff and researchers confirmed these views. The very low level of knowledge about sexually transmitted infections influenced students to not view themselves as candidates for testing. There were also suggestions that some teenagers considered themselves invulnerable to sexually transmitted infections despite engaging in risky sexual behaviours. Students and researchers reported the strong influence peers had on uptake, or not, of sexually transmitted infection testing. This study offers new insights into the acceptability of college-based sexually transmitted infection screening to young, multi-ethnic students. Future studies in similar high risk, hard to reach groups should consider linking testing with education about sexually transmitted infections, offering non stigmatising incentives and engaging peer influencers.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Low uptake of sexually transmitted infection testing by sexually active young people is a worldwide public health problem. Screening in non-medical settings has been suggested as a method to improve uptake. The "Test n Treat" feasibility trial offered free, on-site rapid chlamydia/gonorrhoea tests with same day treatment for chlamydia (and gonorrhoea treatment at a local clinic,) to sexually active students (median age 17 years) at six technical colleges in London. Despite high rates of chlamydia (6% prevalence), uptake of testing was low (< 15%). In a qualitative study we explored the acceptability, including barriers and facilitators to uptake, of on-site chlamydia screening.
METHODS METHODS
In 2016-17 we conducted a qualitative study in the interpretative tradition using face to face or telephone semi-structured interviews with students (n = 26), teaching staff (n = 3) and field researchers (n = 4). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.
RESULTS RESULTS
From the student perspective, feelings of embarrassment and the potential for stigma were deterrents to sexually transmitted infection testing. While the non-medical setting was viewed as mitigating against stigma, for some students volunteering to be screened exposed them to detrimental judgements by their peers. A small financial incentive to be screened was regarded as legitimising volunteering in a non-discrediting way. Staff and researchers confirmed these views. The very low level of knowledge about sexually transmitted infections influenced students to not view themselves as candidates for testing. There were also suggestions that some teenagers considered themselves invulnerable to sexually transmitted infections despite engaging in risky sexual behaviours. Students and researchers reported the strong influence peers had on uptake, or not, of sexually transmitted infection testing.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This study offers new insights into the acceptability of college-based sexually transmitted infection screening to young, multi-ethnic students. Future studies in similar high risk, hard to reach groups should consider linking testing with education about sexually transmitted infections, offering non stigmatising incentives and engaging peer influencers.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32770977
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1
pii: 10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1
pmc: PMC7414554
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1212

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0901608
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : II-LB-0214-20005
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PB-PG-1014-35007
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute of Health Research
ID : PB-PG-1014-35007

Références

Trials. 2018 Jun 5;19(1):311
pubmed: 29871673
J Community Health. 2013 Apr;38(2):293-300
pubmed: 23001541
BMC Public Health. 2018 May 29;18(1):664
pubmed: 29843658
AIDS Behav. 2014 May;18(5):905-12
pubmed: 24068389
Sex Transm Dis. 2012 Nov;39(11):831-4
pubmed: 23064530
Lancet. 2013 Nov 30;382(9907):1795-806
pubmed: 24286785
BMC Infect Dis. 2013 Aug 01;13:361
pubmed: 23915415
Sex Health. 2010 Mar;7(1):60-5
pubmed: 20152098
Ir J Med Sci. 2015 Mar;184(1):135-42
pubmed: 24510451
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jul 17;15:676
pubmed: 26184413
Soc Sci Med. 1994 Nov;39(9):1339-58
pubmed: 7801170
BMC Public Health. 2010 Nov 24;10:725
pubmed: 21106064
J Adolesc Health. 2016 May;58(5):512-9
pubmed: 26987687
J Am Coll Health. 2002 Jan;50(4):153-9
pubmed: 11910948
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Jun;93(4):283
pubmed: 28576786
Sex Transm Infect. 2018 Aug;94(5):340-345
pubmed: 29748180
J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2009 Jan;35(1):21-6
pubmed: 19126312
J Adolesc Health. 2016 Jun;58(6):621-7
pubmed: 27032487
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Sex Transm Dis. 2006 Oct;33(10):614-20
pubmed: 16614587
J Adolesc Health. 2016 Jul;59(1):7-16
pubmed: 27338664
Lancet. 2016 Jun 11;387(10036):2423-78
pubmed: 27174304
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 26;6:35
pubmed: 16872487
J Sex Res. 2018 Jan;55(1):31-44
pubmed: 27898248
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2006 Sep;7(1):1-44
pubmed: 26158695
Health Expect. 2016 Apr;19(2):322-30
pubmed: 25703741
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jul;25(7):865-871
pubmed: 30391581

Auteurs

Charlotte Fleming (C)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.

Vari M Drennan (VM)

Centre for Health & Social Care Research, Kingston University & St George's, University of London, London, UK. V.Drennan@sgul.kingston.ac.uk.

Sarah Kerry-Barnard (S)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.

Fiona Reid (F)

School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Elisabeth J Adams (EJ)

Aquarius Population Health Limited, London, UK.

S Tariq Sadiq (ST)

Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK.

Rachel Phillips (R)

School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Wendy Majewska (W)

WEM Consultancy Ltd., London, UK.

Emma M Harding-Esch (EM)

Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Public Health England, London, UK.

Emma C Cousins (EC)

Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK.

Freya Yoward (F)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.

Pippa Oakeshott (P)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH