4.0 Review

Narrative review of the barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice

Journal

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 139-147

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/PY13158

Keywords

general practitioner; primary health care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As the cornerstone of Australian primary health care, general practice is a setting well suited for regular chlamydia testing but testing rates remain low. This review examines the barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. Six databases - Medline, PubMed, Meditext, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science - were used to identify peer-reviewed publications that addressed barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice using the following terms: 'chlamydia test*', 'STI test*'' general practice', 'primary care', 'family medicine', 'barriers', 'facilitators' and 'enablers' from 1997 until November 2013. Data about the study design and key findings were extracted from the publications. A framework method was used to manage the data and organise publications into three categories -patient, general practitioner, and general practice. Key findings were then classified as a barrier or facilitator. Sixty-nine publications were included, with 41 quantitative studies, 17 qualitative studies, and 11 using mixed methods. Common barriers identified in all three groups included a lack of knowledge, awareness or training, demands on time and workload, and the social context of testing. Facilitators included the normalisation of testing, the use of nurses and other practice staff, education and incentives. Numerous barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice have been identified. While the barriers are well studied, many of the facilitators are not as well researched, and highlight areas for further study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available