Exploring why a complex intervention piloted in general practices did not result in an increase in chlamydia screening and diagnosis: a qualitative evaluation using the fidelity of implementation model.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) is the most commonly diagnosed sexually transmitted infection (STI) in England; approximately 70% of diagnoses are in sexually active young adults aged under 25. To facilitate opportunistic chlamydia screening in general practice, a complex intervention, based on a previously successful Chlamydia Intervention Randomised Trial (CIRT), was piloted in England. The modified intervention (3Cs and HIV) aimed to encourage general practice staff to routinely offer chlamydia testing to all 15-24 year olds regardless of the type of consultation. However, when the 3Cs (chlamydia screening, signposting to contraceptive services, free condoms) and HIV was offered to a large number of general practitioner (GP) surgeries across England, chlamydia screening was not significantly increased. This qualitative evaluation addresses the following aims: a) Explore why the modified intervention did not increase screening across all general practices. b) Suggest recommendations for future intervention implementation. METHODS: Phone interviews were carried out with 26 practice staff, at least 5 months after their initial educational workshop, exploring their opinions on the workshop and intervention implementation in the real world setting. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed and further examined using the fidelity of implementation model. RESULTS: Participants who attended had a positive attitude towards the workshops, but attendee numbers were low. Often, the intervention content, as detailed in the educational workshops, was not adhered to: practice staff were unaware of any on-going trainer support; computer prompts were only added to the female contraception template; patients were not encouraged to complete the test immediately; complete chlamydia kits were not always readily available to the clinicians; and videos and posters were not utilised. Staff reported that financial incentives, themselves, were not a motivator; competing priorities and time were identified as major barriers. CONCLUSION: Not adhering to the exact intervention model may explain the lack of significant increases in chlamydia screening. To increase fidelity of implementation outside of Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) conditions, and consequently, improve likelihood of increased screening, future public health interventions in general practices need to have: more specific action planning within the educational workshop; computer prompts added to systems and used; all staff attending the workshop; and on-going practice staff support with feedback of progress on screening and diagnosis rates fed back to all staff.

Supporting general practices to provide sexual and reproductive health services: protocol for the 3Cs & HIV programme.

OBJECTIVES: Sexually transmitted infections, HIV and unplanned pregnancies continue to be a major public health problem in England, especially in young adults. Strengthening the provision of free condoms, HIV testing, chlamydia screening and contraception within primary care will contribute to reducing poor sexual and reproductive health outcomes. Recent research demonstrated the benefit for general practices of educational support visits based on behaviour change theory. Public Health England (PHE) has piloted an educational training programme to improve the delivery of sexual health services and HIV testing within general practice. STUDY DESIGN & METHODS: The 3Cs & HIV programme used practice based workshops to improve staffs' awareness and skills in order to increase opportunistic offers of chlamydia testing, provision of contraceptive service information and free condoms (the '3Cs') to 15-24 year olds and HIV testing according to national guidelines. The programme was based on the theory of planned behaviour and has been implemented using a stepped wedge design. Process evaluation, testing and diagnosis data, plus qualitative interviews were all used in the evaluation. The primary outcome measures were chlamydia testing and diagnosis rates. Secondary outcome measures were HIV testing and diagnoses rates within each practice and rates of consultations where long acting reversible contraceptives had been discussed. CONCLUSION: A key strength of the 3Cs & HIV programme has been the evidence base underpinning the development of the resources and the formal process evaluation of its implementation. The programme was designed to encourage sustainable relationships between general practice staff and local sexual health services as well as the knowledge, awareness and behaviours cultivated during the programme.