The Open UniversitySkip to content

Tools to overcome potential barriers to chlamydia screening in general practice: Qualitative evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention

Ricketts, Ellie J.; Francischetto, Elaine O’Connell; Wallace, Louise M.; Hogan, Angela and McNulty, Cliodna A. M. (2016). Tools to overcome potential barriers to chlamydia screening in general practice: Qualitative evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention. BMC Family Practice, 17(33)

Full text available as:
PDF (Version of Record) - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (519kB) | Preview
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:
Google Scholar: Look up in Google Scholar


Chlamydia trachomatis remains a significant public health problem. We used a complex intervention, with general practice staff, consisting of practice based workshops, posters, computer prompts and testing feedback and feedback to increase routine chlamydia screening tests in under 25 year olds in South West England. We aimed to evaluate how intervention components were received by staff and to understand what determined their implementation into ongoing practice.

We used face-to-face and telephone individual interviews with 29 general practice staff analysed thematically within a Normalisation Process Theory Framework which explores: 1. Coherence (if participants understand the purpose of the intervention); 2. Cognitive participation (engagement with and implementation of the intervention); 3. Collective action (work actually undertaken that drives the intervention forwards); 4. Reflexive monitoring (assessment of the impact of the intervention).

Our results showed coherence as all staff including receptionists understood the purpose of the training was to make them aware of the value of chlamydia screening tests and how to increase this in their general practice. The training was described by nearly all staff as being of high quality and responsible for creating a shared understanding between staff of how to undertake routine chlamydia screening.

Cognitive participation in many general practice staff teams was demonstrated through their engagement by meeting after the training to discuss implementation, which confirmed the role of each staff member and the use of materials. However several participants still felt unable to discuss chlamydia in many consultations or described sexual health as low priority among colleagues. National targets were considered so high for some general practice staff that they didn’t engage with the screening intervention.

Collective action work undertaken to drive the intervention included use of computer prompts which helped staff remember to make the offer, testing rate feedback and having a designated lead. Ensuring patients collected samples when still in the general practice was not attained in most general practices.

Reflexive monitoring showed positive feedback from patients and other staff about the value of screening, and feedback about the general practices testing rates helped sustain activity.

A complex intervention including interactive workshops, materials to help implementation and feedback can help chlamydia screening testing increase in general practices.

Item Type: Journal Item
Copyright Holders: 2016 The Authors
ISSN: 1471-2296
Project Funding Details:
Funded Project NameProject IDFunding Body
Not SetNot SetHealth Protection Agency (now Public Health England)
Keywords: Chlamydia screening; General practice; Primary care; Normalisation process theory; Education; Sexual health
Academic Unit/School: Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies (WELS)
Research Group: Health and Wellbeing PRA (Priority Research Area)
Item ID: 46524
Depositing User: Louise Wallace
Date Deposited: 06 Jun 2016 13:40
Last Modified: 02 May 2019 14:18
Share this page:


Altmetrics from Altmetric

Citations from Dimensions

Download history for this item

These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.

Actions (login may be required)

Policies | Disclaimer

© The Open University   contact the OU