Family Practice Advance Access originally published online on March 16, 2005
Family Practice 2005 22(3):353; doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh731
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence |
Sexual health in primary care: acceptability of providing a urine sample for chlamydia screening in GP attendees aged 25 or under
32 Heaton Road, Mitcham, Surrey CR4 2BU, Email: frankieiles{at}hotmail.com
Department of General Practice and Primary Care, St George's Hospital Medical School
Please send correspondence to Frances Iles
Gott and Hinchcliffe1 found a number of barriers inhibiting older people from seeking treatment for sexual problems in primary care. We recently investigated a different sexual issue in younger people visiting their GP. Our aim was to find the acceptability to GP attendees aged 25 or under of being asked to provide a urine specimen for chlamydia screening.
In Nov 2003 we conducted a cross sectional, confidential questionnaire survey of all patients aged 25 or under attending an inner London GP surgery in one week. 54 patients aged 25 or under attended the surgery; all were given an information sheet. 14 did not wish to take part (response rate 74%, 40/54). The age range of the 40 participants was 16–25, the mean age was 22 and 18% were male (7/40). 25 of the participants were white (63%), 6 participants were black Caribbean, 3 were Black African, 1 participant was Asian, and the remaining 5 participants were of other ethnic groups. Men were significantly less likely than women to accept the offer of screening: 50% (7/14) of men agreed to take part compared to 83% (33/40) of women (P < 0.05). No participants were found to be positive for chlamydia.
The response rate suggests that opportunistic chlamydia screening in general practice is acceptable and feasible. This is in line with the Department of Health chlamydia screening pilots in Portsmouth and Wirral.2 Almost 20 000 people were tested during the one-year study. 50% of the eligible female population in the target age range (16–24) were screened and the prevalence of infection in under 25s tested in primary care was 13%. By contrast we did not find any chlamydia positives in our study. This could be because of our small sample size or because in the pilot screening programmes screening was opportunistic and selective rather than consecutive. Therefore it is likely that the GPs (who were paid to take part) screened mainly high risk or symptomatic individuals.
More research is needed to determine whether opportunistic screening in primary care throughout the UK would be practical and financially beneficial for the NHS in the long term. The recently implemented DOH phased roll out system aims to answer these questions.
References
1 Gott M, Hinchcliff S. Barriers to seeking treatment for sexual problems in primary care: a qualitative study with older people.Fam Pract 2003; 20: 690–695.
2 The Sexual health and Substance Misuse Team, Department of Health, London. A pilot study of opportunistic screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in England (1999–2000). Summary Report.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||