University General - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/198003

Filters

2009 - 2010 2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Chen, Marcus × Author: Hocking, Jane × Author: Sanci, Lena × Start date: 2007 × Type: Journal Article ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial
    Bilardi, JE ; Fairley, CK ; Temple-Smith, MJ ; Pirotta, MV ; McNamee, KM ; Bourke, S ; Gurrin, LC ; Hellard, M ; Sanci, LA ; Wills, MJ ; Walker, J ; Chen, MY ; Hocking, JS (BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 2010-02-17)
    BACKGROUND: Financial incentives have been used for many years internationally to improve quality of care in general practice. The aim of this pilot study was to determine if offering general practitioners (GP) a small incentive payment per test would increase chlamydia testing in women aged 16 to 24 years, attending general practice. METHODS: General practice clinics (n = 12) across Victoria, Australia, were cluster randomized to receive either a $AUD5 payment per chlamydia test or no payment for testing 16 to 24 year old women for chlamydia. Data were collected on the number of chlamydia tests and patient consultations undertaken by each GP over two time periods: 12 month pre-trial and 6 month trial period. The impact of the intervention was assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, accommodating for clustering at GP level. RESULTS: Testing increased from 6.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) to 8.8% (95% CI: 4.8, 13.0) (p = 0.1) in the control group and from 11.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 18.5) to 13.4% (95% CI: 9.5, 17.5) (p = 0.4) in the intervention group. Overall, the intervention did not result in a significant increase in chlamydia testing in general practice. The odds ratio for an increase in testing in the intervention group compared to the control group was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2). Major barriers to increased chlamydia testing reported by GPs included a lack of time, difficulty in remembering to offer testing and a lack of patient awareness around testing. CONCLUSIONS: A small financial incentive alone did not increase chlamydia testing among young women attending general practice. It is possible small incentive payments in conjunction with reminder and feedback systems may be effective, as may higher financial incentive payments. Further research is required to determine if financial incentives can increase testing in Australian general practice, the type and level of financial scheme required and whether incentives needs to be part of a multi-faceted package. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12608000499381.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The experience of providing young people attending general practice with an online risk assessment tool to assess their own sexual health risk
    Bilardi, JE ; Sanci, LA ; Fairley, CK ; Hocking, JS ; Mazza, D ; Henning, DJ ; Sawyer, SM ; Wills, MJ ; Wilson, DA ; Chen, MY (BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 2009-03-12)
    BACKGROUND: Targeted chlamydia screening has been advocated to reduce chlamydia associated reproductive sequelae. General practitioners are well positioned to play a major role in chlamydia control. The primary aim of this pilot study was to measure the effect of offering an online sexual health assessment tool, Youth Check Your Risk, on chlamydia testing rates among young people attending general practices. The secondary aim was to test the acceptability of the tool among general practitioners and young people. METHODS: General practitioners at three practices in Melbourne, Australia, referred patients aged 16 to 24 years to Youth Check Your Risk http://www.checkyourrisk.org.au for use post-consultation between March to October 2007. The proportion of young people tested for chlamydia before and during the implementation of the tool was compared. Acceptability was assessed through a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire with general practitioners, and anonymous online data provided by Youth Check Your Risk users. RESULTS: The intervention did not result in any significant increases in the proportion of 16 to 24 year old males (2.7% to 3.0%) or females (6.3% to 6.4%) tested for chlamydia. A small increase in the proportion of 16 to 19 year old females tested was seen (4.1% to 7.2%). Of the 2997 patients seen during the intervention phase, 871 (29.1%) were referred to Youth Check Your Risk and 120 used it (13.8%). Major reasons for low referral rates reported by practitioners included lack of time, discomfort with raising the issue of testing, and difficulty in remembering to refer patients. CONCLUSION: Offering an online sexual risk assessment tool in general practice did not significantly increase the proportion of young people tested for chlamydia, with GPs identifying a number of barriers to referring young people to Youth Check Your Risk. Future interventions aimed at increasing chlamydia screening in general practice with the aid of an online risk assessment tool need to identify and overcome barriers to testing.