20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Young people’s perceptions of smartphone-enabled self-testing and online care for sexually transmitted infections: qualitative interview study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Control of sexually transmitted infections (STI) is a global public health priority. Despite the UK’s free, confidential sexual health clinical services, those at greatest risk of STIs, including young people, report barriers to use. These include: embarrassment regarding face-to-face consultations; the time-commitment needed to attend clinic; privacy concerns (e.g. being seen attending clinic); and issues related to confidentiality.

          A smartphone-enabled STI self-testing device, linked with online clinical care pathways for treatment, partner notification, and disease surveillance, is being developed by the eSTI 2 consortium. It is intended to benefit public health, and could do so by increasing testing among populations which underutilise existing services and/or by enabling rapid provision of effective treatment. We explored its acceptability among potential users.

          Methods

          In-depth interviews were conducted in 2012 with 25 sexually-experienced 16–24 year olds, recruited from Further Education colleges in an urban, high STI prevalence area. Thematic analysis was undertaken.

          Results

          Nine females and 16 males participated. 21 self-defined as Black; three, mixed ethnicity; and one, Muslim/Asian. 22 reported experience of STI testing, two reported previous STI diagnoses, and all had owned smartphones.

          Participants expressed enthusiasm about the proposed service, and suggested that they and their peers would use it and test more often if it were available. Utilizing sexual healthcare was perceived to be easier and faster with STI self-testing and online clinical care, which facilitated concealment of STI testing from peers/family, and avoided embarrassing face-to-face consultations. Despite these perceived advantages to privacy, new privacy concerns arose regarding communications technology: principally the risk inherent in having evidence of STI testing or diagnosis visible or retrievable on their phone. Some concerns arose regarding the proposed self-test’s accuracy, related to self-operation and the technology’s novelty. Several expressed anxiety around the possibility of being diagnosed and treated without any contact with healthcare professionals.

          Conclusions

          Remote STI self-testing and online care appealed to these young people. It addressed barriers they associated with conventional STI services, thus may benefit public health through earlier detection and treatment. Our findings underpin development of online care pathways, as part of ongoing research to create this complex e-health intervention.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3648-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance

            Evaluating complex interventions is complicated. The Medical Research Council's evaluation framework (2000) brought welcome clarity to the task. Now the council has updated its guidance
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Prevalence, risk factors, and uptake of interventions for sexually transmitted infections in Britain: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal)

              Summary Background Population-based estimates of prevalence, risk distribution, and intervention uptake inform delivery of control programmes for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We undertook the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3) after implementation of national sexual health strategies, and describe the epidemiology of four STIs in Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and the uptake of interventions. Methods Between Sept 6, 2010 and Aug 31, 2012, we did a probability sample survey of 15 162 women and men aged 16–74 years in Britain. Participants were interviewed with computer-assisted face-to-face and self-completion questionnaires. Urine from a sample of participants aged 16–44 years who reported at least one sexual partner over the lifetime was tested for the presence of Chlamydia trachomatis, type-specific human papillomavirus (HPV), Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and HIV antibody. We describe age-specific and sex-specific prevalences of infection and intervention uptake, in relation to demographic and behavioural factors, and explore changes since Natsal-1 (1990–91) and Natsal-2 (1999–2001). Findings Of 8047 eligible participants invited to provide a urine sample, 4828 (60%) agreed. We excluded 278 samples, leaving 4550 (94%) participants with STI test results. Chlamydia prevalence was 1·5% (95% CI 1·1–2·0) in women and 1·1% (0·7–1·6) in men. Prevalences in individuals aged 16–24 years were 3·1% (2·2–4·3) in women and 2·3% (1·5–3·4) in men. Area-level deprivation and higher numbers of partners, especially without use of condoms, were risk factors. However, 60·4% (45·5–73·7) of chlamydia in women and 43·3% (25·9–62·5) in men was in individuals who had had one partner in the past year. Among sexually active 16–24-year-olds, 54·2% (51·4–56·9) of women and 34·6% (31·8–37·4) of men reported testing for chlamydia in the past year, with testing higher in those with more partners. High-risk HPV was detected in 15·9% (14·4–17·5) of women, similar to in Natsal-2. Coverage of HPV catch-up vaccination was 61·5% (58·2–64·7). Prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 in women aged 18–20 years was lower in Natsal-3 than Natsal-2 (5·8% [3·9–8·6] vs 11·3% [6·8–18·2]; age-adjusted odds ratio 0·44 [0·21–0·94]). Gonorrhoea (<0·1% prevalence in women and men) and HIV (0·1% prevalence in women and 0·2% in men) were uncommon and restricted to participants with recognised high-risk factors. Since Natsal-2, substantial increases were noted in attendance at sexual health clinics (from 6·7% to 21·4% in women and from 7·7% to 19·6% in men) and HIV testing (from 8·7% to 27·6% in women and from 9·2% to 16·9% in men) in the past 5 years. Interpretation STIs were distributed heterogeneously, requiring general and infection-specific interventions. Increases in testing and attendance at sexual health clinics, especially in people at highest risk, are encouraging. However, STIs persist both in individuals accessing and those not accessing services. Our findings provide empirical evidence to inform future sexual health interventions and services. Funding Grants from the UK Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, with support from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Department of Health.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                c.aicken@ucl.ac.uk
                sfuller@sgul.ac.uk
                l.j.sutcliffe@qmul.ac.uk
                c.s.estcourt@qmul.ac.uk
                voula.gkatzidou@brunel.ac.uk
                oakeshot@sgul.ac.uk
                kate.hone@brunel.ac.uk
                ssadiq@sgul.ac.uk
                p.sonnenberg@ucl.ac.uk
                m.shahmanesh@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                13 September 2016
                13 September 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 1
                : 974
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, Mortimer Market Centre, off Capper Street, London, WC1E 6JB UK
                [2 ]Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George’s University of London, London, UK
                [3 ]Blizard Institute, Centre for Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [4 ]College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Brunel University London, London, UK
                [5 ]Population Health Research Institute, St George’s University of London, London, UK
                Article
                3648
                10.1186/s12889-016-3648-y
                5022229
                27624633
                28220d5b-9900-4896-bc23-8e68942cea62
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 October 2015
                : 7 September 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: G0901608
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Public health
                acceptability of healthcare,clinical pathways,ehealth,internet,mobile health,sexually transmitted infections

                Comments

                Comment on this article