IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215380.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“It’s not a time spent issue, it’s a ‘what have you spent your time doing?’ issue…” A qualitative study of UK patient opinions and expectations for implementation of Point of Care Tests for sexually transmitted infections and antimicrobial resistance

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian S Fuller
  • Agata Pacho
  • Claire E Broad
  • Achyuta V Nori
  • Emma M Harding-Esch
  • Syed Tariq Sadiq

Abstract

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to be a major public health concern in the United Kingdom (UK). Epidemiological models have shown that narrowing the time between STI diagnosis and treatment may reduce the population burden of infection, and rapid, accurate point-of-care tests (POCTs) have potential for increasing correct treatment and mitigating the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We developed the Precise social science programme to incorporate clinician and patient opinions on potential designs and implementation of new POCTs for multiple STIs and AMR detection. We conducted qualitative research, consisting of informal interviews with clinicians and semi-structured in-depth interviews with patients, in six sexual health clinics in the UK. Interviews with clinicians focused on how the new POCTs would likely be implemented into clinical care; these new clinical pathways were then posed to patients in in-depth interviews. Patient interviews showed acceptability of POCTs, however, willingness to wait in clinic for test results depended on the context of patients’ sexual healthcare seeking. Patients reporting frequent healthcare visits often based their expectations and opinions of services and POCTs on previous visits. Patients’ suggestions for implementation of POCTs included provision of information on service changes and targeting tests to patients concerned they are infected. Our data suggests that patients may accept new POCT pathways if they are given information on these changes prior to attending services and to consider implementing POCTs among patients who are anxious about their infection status and/or who are experiencing symptoms.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian S Fuller & Agata Pacho & Claire E Broad & Achyuta V Nori & Emma M Harding-Esch & Syed Tariq Sadiq, 2019. "“It’s not a time spent issue, it’s a ‘what have you spent your time doing?’ issue…” A qualitative study of UK patient opinions and expectations for implementation of Point of Care Tests for sexually t," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215380
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215380
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215380&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215380?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krupat, Edward & Fancey, Marcella & Cleary, Paul D., 2000. "Information and its impact on satisfaction among surgical patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 1817-1825, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elizabeth Fitzpatrick & Abbey Hyde, 2006. "Nurse‐related factors in the delivery of preoperative patient education," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 671-677, June.
    2. Mark Mitchell, 2017. "Day surgery nurses' selection of patient preoperative information," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 225-237, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.