Understanding the acceptability, barriers and facilitators for chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in technical colleges: qualitative process evaluation of the "Test n Treat" trial.

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 offers new insights into the acceptability of college-based sexually transmitted infection screening to young, multi-ethnic students. Future studies in similar high risk, hard to reach groups should consider linking testing with education about sexually transmitted infections, offering non stigmatising incentives and engaging peer influencers.

'Test n Treat (TnT)'- Rapid testing and same-day, on-site treatment to reduce rates of chlamydia in sexually active further education college students: study protocol for a cluster randomised feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Sexually active young people attending London further education (FE) colleges have high rates of chlamydia, but screening rates are low. We will conduct a cluster randomised feasibility trial of frequent, rapid, on-site chlamydia testing and same-day treatment (Test and Treat (TnT)) in six FE colleges (with parallel qualitative and economic assessments) to assess the feasibility of conducting a future trial to investigate if TnT reduces chlamydia rates. METHODS: We will recruit 80 sexually active students aged 16-24 years from public areas at each of six colleges. All participants (total n = 480) will be asked to provide samples (urine for males, self-taken vaginal swabs for females) and complete questionnaires on sexual lifestyle and healthcare use at baseline and after 7 months. Participants will be informed that baseline samples will not be tested for 7 months and be advised to get screened separately. Colleges will be randomly allocated to the intervention (TnT) or the control group (no TnT). One and 4 months after recruitment, participants at each intervention college (n = 3) will be texted and invited for on-site chlamydia tests using the 90-min Cepheid GeneXpert system. Students with positive results will be asked to see a visiting nurse health adviser for same-day treatment and partner notification, (backed by genitourinary medicine follow-up). Participants in control colleges (n = 3) will receive 'thank you' texts 1 and 4 months after recruitment. Seven months after recruitment, participants from both groups will be invited to complete questionnaires and provide samples for TnT. All samples will be tested, and same-day treatment offered to students with positive results. Acceptability of TnT will be assessed by qualitative interviews of purposively sampled students (n = 30) and college staff (n = 12). We will collect data on costs of TnT and usual healthcare. DISCUSSION: Findings will provide key values to inform feasibility, sample size and timescales of a future definitive trial of TnT in FE colleges, including: Recruitment rates TnT uptake rates Follow-up rates Prevalence of chlamydia in participants at baseline and 7 months Acceptability of TnT to students and college staff Estimate of the cost per person screened/treated in TnT versus usual care TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry, ID: ISRCTN58038795 , Registered on 31 August 2016.

Routine HIV testing in the Emergency Department: feasible and acceptable?

Routine HIV testing in non-specialist settings has the potential to significantly reduce late diagnosis and delay in treatment. The objective was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of HIV testing in an Emergency Department (ED) at a busy London teaching hospital. We conducted an observational cross sectional study between March-May 2012 where patients aged between 18-65 years attending St George's ED having serological tests were offered HIV testing by ED clinical staff. Patients were given an information leaflet on HIV, including how to obtain results. Data detailing whether the test was offered (feasibility) and whether the patient consented to the test (acceptability) were documented. Information regarding reasons for not offering HIV testing and reasons why the test was declined was also recorded. During the study period, 24,171 patients aged 18-65 were seen in the ED. Data were collected from 5657 patients. The mean age was 38 years, 57% were female and 27% identified themselves as white. 48% were offered HIV testing, of which 65% accepted. Incapacity to consent to testing was cited by clinicians as the commonest reason for not offering an HIV test (76%). 'Recent HIV test' was the commonest reason for declining a test (38%). One new HIV diagnosis was made. Our experience demonstrates that routine HIV testing in the ED is feasible and acceptable. However, to make HIV testing effective and part of routine clinical care, considerable clinical leadership, staff training and additional resources are required.