Are Clinicians Open to Less Asymptomatic STI Screening for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea in Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men and the Possibility of Not Treating Positive Diagnoses? A Qualitative Study from Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence from real-world studies suggests that 3-monthly screening for asymptomatic chlamydia/gonorrhea is not reducing incidence and is driving increased antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While some countries are recommending less screening, changes to guidelines require clinician buy-in. This study explored the views of Australian sexual health clinicians on changing practices around asymptomatic screening for chlamydia/gonorrhea in gay, bisexual, and other men-who-have-sex-with-men and attitudes to not automatically treating positive diagnoses. Between September and December 2024, we conducted thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 physicians (including 8 general practitioners) and 4 nurse practitioners working in sexual health centers, hospitals, Aboriginal health services, general practice, and nongovernmental organizations. Clinicians had variable knowledge about the limited effectiveness of asymptomatic screening. Many were open to reduced screening if provided supporting evidence. Given challenges in reducing medical interventions, they recommended public education to drive changes. While some clinicians supported patient dialogue in treatment decision-making, most felt uncomfortable not treating. Key concerns included ideas about their role as doctors, onward transmission (particularly to women), and complications/uncomfortable symptoms/patient psychological well-being. AMR considerations were less salient. While the “test and treat” paradigm is engrained, clinicians were open to reduced screening if provided with clear evidence but were generally reluctant to not treat. A flexible approach that supports patient empowerment in decision-making about screening frequency and choices around treatment could present a way forward. Changing practice requires education to shift patient/clinician mindsets around what it means to have a positive chlamydia/gonorrhea diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".