Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

Dr Rachel Phillips

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Senior Lecturer in Medical Statistics and Clinical Trials
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 8802r.phillips

 
 
//

Location

 

Stadium HouseWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Fleming:2020:10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1,
author = {Fleming, C and Drennan, VM and Kerry-Barnard, S and Reid, F and Adams, EJ and Sadiq, ST and Phillips, R and Majewska, W and Harding-Esch, EM and Cousins, EC and Yoward, F and Oakeshott, P},
doi = {10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1},
journal = {BMC Public Health},
title = {Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the "Test n Treat" trial.},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1},
volume = {20},
year = {2020}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BACKGROUND: Low uptake of sexually transmitted infection testing by sexually active young people is a worldwide public health problem. Screening in non-medical settings has been suggested as a method to improve uptake. The "Test n Treat" feasibility trial offered free, on-site rapid chlamydia/gonorrhoea tests with same day treatment for chlamydia (and gonorrhoea treatment at a local clinic,) to sexually active students (median age 17 years) at six technical colleges in London. Despite high rates of chlamydia (6% prevalence), uptake of testing was low (< 15%). In a qualitative study we explored the acceptability, including barriers and facilitators to uptake, of on-site chlamydia screening. METHODS: In 2016-17 we conducted a qualitative study in the interpretative tradition using face to face or telephone semi-structured interviews with students (n = 26), teaching staff (n = 3) and field researchers (n = 4). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: From the student perspective, feelings of embarrassment and the potential for stigma were deterrents to sexually transmitted infection testing. While the non-medical setting was viewed as mitigating against stigma, for some students volunteering to be screened exposed them to detrimental judgements by their peers. A small financial incentive to be screened was regarded as legitimising volunteering in a non-discrediting way. Staff and researchers confirmed these views. The very low level of knowledge about sexually transmitted infections influenced students to not view themselves as candidates for testing. There were also suggestions that some teenagers considered themselves invulnerable to sexually transmitted infections despite engaging in risky sexual behaviours. Students and researchers reported the strong influence peers had on uptake, or not, of sexually transmitted infection testing. CONCLUSIONS: This study
AU  - Fleming,C
AU  - Drennan,VM
AU  - Kerry-Barnard,S
AU  - Reid,F
AU  - Adams,EJ
AU  - Sadiq,ST
AU  - Phillips,R
AU  - Majewska,W
AU  - Harding-Esch,EM
AU  - Cousins,EC
AU  - Yoward,F
AU  - Oakeshott,P
DO  - 10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1
PY  - 2020///
SN  - 1471-2458
TI  - Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the "Test n Treat" trial.
T2  - BMC Public Health
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09285-1
UR  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32770977
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/81716
VL  - 20
ER  -
Download