General practice chlamydia testing: a qualitative study of staff approaches using behavioural change theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chlamydia is the most diagnosed bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) in England, but opportunistic testing remains low in general practice despite high prevalence among young people. Attempts to increase testing have been met with little success; therefore, there is a need to explore why rates remain low and how this may be improved. AIM: To explore general practice staff perceptions of opportunistic chlamydia testing, including barriers, facilitators, interventions, and policies, using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative interviews and focus groups were undertaken with general practice staff in England. METHOD: Twenty-three semi-structured individual interviews and seven focus groups with general practice staff were conducted. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, followed by thematic categorisation onto the BCW. RESULTS: Participants identified several barriers to chlamydia testing corresponding with BCW components, including low perceived knowledge (psychological capability), general practice context (physical opportunity), cultural norms (social opportunity), testing not prioritised (reflective motivation), and concerns about patient reactions (automatic motivation). Proposed intervention functions included education, persuasion (for example, posters), incentivisation (for example, financial incentives), and environmental restructuring (for example, computer reminders). Potential policy categories discussed were communication and marketing (for example, campaigns) and service provision (for example, GP drop-in sessions at other venues). CONCLUSION: This study identified barriers to chlamydia testing in English general practice and potential ways to address these issues, contributing new insights to existing literature. This research can be utilised to design multi-component, impactful interventions to increase testing in general practice and ultimately reduce harm posed by chlamydia infections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".