Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Could a peer-led intervention increase uptake of chlamydia screening? A proof of principle pilot study
  1. Jessica Loaring1,
  2. Matthew Hickman2,
  3. Isabel Oliver3,
  4. Rona Campbell4,
  5. Caroline Trotter5,
  6. John Macleod6,
  7. Karl Pye7,
  8. Joanna Crichton8,
  9. Paddy Horner9
  1. 1Researcher, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol and Trainee Clinical Psychologist, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2Professor in Public Health and Epidemiology, Health Protection Agency, Gloucester, UK
  3. 3Deputy Director Field Epidemiology and Regional Director, Health Protection Agency, Gloucester, UK
  4. 4Professor of Public Health Research, Chlamydia Screening Programme, Bristol PCT, Bristol, UK
  5. 5Senior Research Fellow, Chlamydia Screening Programme, Bristol PCT, Bristol, UK
  6. 6Professor in Clinical Epidemiology and Primary Care, Chlamydia Screening Programme, Bristol PCT, Bristol, UK
  7. 7Chlamydia Screening Co-ordinator, Chlamydia Screening Programme, Bristol PCT, Bristol, UK
  8. 8PhD Student, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  9. 9Consultant Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Patrick Horner, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK; Paddy.horner{at}bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Uptake of the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme is lower than predicted necessary to result in a rapid fall in chlamydia prevalence. Peer-led approaches may increase screening uptake but their feasibility and acceptability to young people is not known.

Methods Focus groups and interviews with young women and men. Following interview, chlamydia postal kits were introduced to participants and their opinions on giving these out to their peers sought. Participants were asked for their views and experiences of discussing chlamydia screening and distributing kits to their friends 4–8 weeks after the focus group/interview. All kits returned to the laboratory over a 9-month period were recorded.

Results Six men (mean age 19 years) and six women (mean age 20 years) were recruited. In total 45 kits were distributed, 33 (73%) to female participants. 22 (67%) and 3 (25%) of kits given to females and males, respectively, were given to peers. Ten kits (22%; seven female, three male) all of which had been given out by females, were returned for testing. Participants generally felt positive about the idea of peer-led screening (PLS) using postal kits. However, embarrassment was a key theme, particularly among men. Generally women but not men were able to discuss PLS among their close friends. Both sexes felt PLS would be easier if kits were readily available in multiple sites, and chlamydia screening was more widely promoted.

Conclusion Female PLS but not male PLS was successful in recruiting peers to participate in chlamydia screening. An evaluation of the acceptability and cost-effectiveness of PLS is now indicated.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Funding This work was supported by a grant from the Health Protection Agency R&D Pump-Priming & Small Initiatives Fund.

  • Competing interests Dr Patrick Horner has been involved in a multi-centre evaluation of a new molecular diagnostic test for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, for which his department received funding. Professor Rona Campbell is Director of DECIPHer Impact, a not-for-profit company set up by the Universities of Bristol and Cardiff to bring to the market evidence-based health promotion programmes. Jessica Loaring, Matthew Hickman, Isabel Oliver, Caroline Trotter, John Macleod, Karl Pye and Joanna Crichton did not declare any competing interests.

  • Ethics approval This study was approved by Somerset Research Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Highlights from this issue
    British Medical Journal Publishing Group