Chlamydia retesting remains low among young women in Australia: an observational study using sentinel surveillance data, 2018-2022.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia remains the most notified bacterial sexually transmissible infection in Australia with guidelines recommending testing for re-infection at 3months post treatment. This paper aimed to determine chlamydia retesting and repeat positivity rates within 2-4months among young women in Australia, and to evaluate what factors increase or decrease the likelihood of retesting. METHODS: Chlamydia retesting rates among 16-29-year-old women were analysed from Australian Collaboration for Coordinated Enhanced Sentinel Surveillance of sexually transmissible infection and bloodborne virus (ACCESS) sentinel surveillance data (n =62 sites). Among women with at least one positive test between 1 January 2018 and 31 August 2022, retesting counts and proportions within 2-4months were calculated. Logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with retesting within 2-4months. RESULTS: Among 8758 women who were positive before 31 August 2022 to allow time for follow up, 1423 (16.2%) were retested within 2-4months, of whom 179 (12.6%) tested positive. The odds of retesting within 2-4months were 25% lower if tested in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-9) pandemic year (2020-2022) (aOR=0.75; 95% CI 0.59-0.95). Among 9140 women with a positive test before 30 November 2022, 397 (4.3%) were retested too early (within 7days to 1month) and 81 (20.4%) of those were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Chlamydia retesting rates remain low with around a sixth of women retested within 2-4months in line with guidelines. Re-infection is common with around one in eight retesting positive. An increase in retesting is required to reduce the risk of reproductive complications and onward transmission.

Young Australians' receptiveness to discussing sexual health with a general practitioner.

BACKGROUND: Most sexual health care in Australia is provided through general practice. However, many young Australians experience barriers to accessing sexual health care. This research examines young Australians' receptiveness to discussing sexual health with a general practitioner (GP). METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online sexual health survey (open 2 May to 21 June 2022). Anyone living in Australia aged 16-29years was eligible to participate. Participants were recruited via social media and asked whether they agreed with five statements exploring their receptivity to discussing sexual health with GPs. We explored characteristics associated with responses using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1915 participants, 69.3% were cisgender women, with a median age of 20years; 48.5% were heterosexual. Approximately one-fifth agreed they might not tell a GP the whole truth about their sexual history, would be worried about confidentiality when discussing their sexual history and would be too embarrassed to see their usual GP if they thought they had a sexually transmitted infection. Over half (55.8%) agreed they would be comfortable with a GP bringing up sexual health in an unrelated consultation, but 39.6% would be nervous to bring up sexual health in case they needed an intimate examination. Multivariate regression identified several characteristics associated with responses. Notably, having a school-based sex education and a usual GP were factors associated with increased receptivity to discussing sexual health. CONCLUSIONS: Young Australians were generally open to discussing sexual health with a GP. School-based sex education and GP-patient relationships are key to promoting sexual health among young people.

Informing the design of a digital intervention to support sexually transmissible infection care in general practice: a qualitative study exploring the views of clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening sexually transmissible infection (STI) management in general practice is prioritised in Australian STI strategy. Digital interventions incorporating clinical decision support offer a mechanism to assist general practitioners (GPs) in STI care. This study explored clinicians' views towards a proposed digital intervention for supporting STI care in Australian general practice as a first step in the tool's design. METHODS: Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted during 2021 with sexual health physicians (n =2) and GPs (n =7) practicing in the state of Victoria, Australia. Interviews explored views on a proposed STI digital intervention for general practice. We applied the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a behaviour change framework to our analysis. This involved: (1) directed content analysis of transcripts into TDF domains; and (2) thematic analysis to identify sub-themes within relevant TDF domains. Subthemes were subsequently categorised into enablers and barriers to the use and implementation of a STI computerised clinical decision support system (CDSS). RESULTS: All interviewees viewed a digital intervention for STI care favourably, expressing confidence in its potential to improve care and support management. Within the relevant TDF domains (e.g. environmental context and resources), subthemes emerged as barriers (e.g. lack of sensitivity to patient context) or enablers (e.g. clear communication and guidance) to the use and implementation of a STI CDSS in primary care. Multiple subthemes (e.g. time constraints) have the potential to be a barrier or an enabler, and is largely dependent on end-user needs being met and clinical context being appropriately addressed. CONCLUSIONS: A digital intervention incorporating clinical decision support was viewed favourably, indicating a possible role for such a tool in Australian general practice. Co-design with end-users and prototype evaluation with health consumers is recommended to ensure relevance and usefulness.

The Implementation Experience of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Testing in a Large-Scale Construction Project in Victoria, Australia.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to industries and workplaces. Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) for COVID-19, which allow individuals to self-administer tests and receive timely results without laboratory testing, provide the opportunity for surveillance testing of asymptomatic individuals in non-medical settings. However, the literature offers few lessons regarding how to create enabling conditions for effective and sustainable implementation in a workplace setting. Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we assessed factors associated with the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of mandatory RAT in a large-scale construction project in Victoria, Australia. We used a mixed methods approach involving site observation, worker surveys (n = 30), and interviews with 51 site workers and managers to understand the implementation experience. Factors which facilitated adoption included easy, non-invasive testing procedure; sense of workplace safety; and strong backing by management and acceptance by workers that RATs helped limit COVID-19-related lost days of work. Gaps in knowledge and adherence to testing protocols, logistical challenges (test kit supply, observation of test results), and low appetite for long-term, mandatory testing emerged as challenges for effective implementation and sustainability. As RAT becomes normalized in a range of workplace settings, strategies will be required to support the sustainability of implementation, including longer-term acceptability of surveillance testing and adherence to testing protocols. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00085-4.

How Much Do Young Australians Know About Syphilis Compared With Chlamydia and Gonorrhea? Findings From an Online Survey.

BACKGROUND: There is increased heterosexual transmission of syphilis in Australia, an infection with severe outcomes. Australian policy emphasizes increasing sexually transmissible infection knowledge/awareness. However, little is known about young Australians' perceptions and knowledge of syphilis. METHODS: Our online sexual health survey was open May 2 to June 21, 2022, to 16- to 29-year-olds in Australia. We asked participants if they were aware of syphilis, their personal risk perception, and perceived severity of infection and compared with results for chlamydia/gonorrhea. Multivariable and multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess characteristics associated with outcomes. We measured sexually transmissible infection knowledge using 10 true/false statements (5 syphilis, 5 chlamydia/gonorrhea). RESULTS: Among 2018 participants (69.1% women, 48.9% heterosexual), 91.3% had heard of syphilis (vs. 97.2% for chlamydia and 93.3% for gonorrhea). Older (25-29 years; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.4) and gay/lesbian (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.3) respondents were more likely to have heard of syphilis, as were those who were non-Aboriginal, sexually active, and with a school-based sex education. Syphilis knowledge was lower than chlamydia/gonorrhea knowledge ( P < 0.001). More than half (59.7%) perceived syphilis to have serious health impacts (vs. 36.4% for chlamydia and 42.3% for gonorrhea). Older respondents were more likely (25-29 years; aOR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.6-2.8), and gay/lesbian respondents less likely (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0) to perceive syphilis to have serious health impacts. One-fifth of sexually active participants were unsure of their risk of syphilis. CONCLUSIONS: Most young Australians are aware of syphilis, but few have comprehensive knowledge about the infection relative to chlamydia/gonorrhea. Considering increasing heterosexual transmission, syphilis health promotion campaigns should expand their focus.

Is there a place for a molecular diagnostic test for pelvic inflammatory disease in primary care? An exploratory qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: There is currently no test for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) that is non-invasive and sufficiently sensitive and specific. Clinicians must therefore diagnose PID clinically, ruling out medical emergencies and conducting pelvic examinations where possible. While guidelines state that clinicians should be prepared to over-diagnose PID, it remains an under-diagnosed condition, with severe reproductive health impacts when left untreated. This research is the first to consider the perspectives of end-users on the development of a diagnostic test for PID. METHODS: Semi-structured live video feed online (Zoom) interviews were conducted with 11 clinicians and nine women (aged 18-30 years) in Australia to understand how a diagnostic test might be used, and what characteristics a test would need for it to be acceptable to clinicians and young women. Participants were recruited via researcher and university student networks. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes relating to the acceptability and characteristics of a diagnostic test for PID. RESULTS: Seven general practitioners, four clinicians working in sexual health clinics, and nine young women (aged 21-27 years) were interviewed. Clinicians were aged between 31-58 years and were predominantly female. Clinicians recognised that the development of an accurate test to diagnose PID would be valuable to themselves and other clinicians, particularly those who lack experience diagnosing PID, and those working in certain settings, including emergency departments. They discussed how they might use a test to enhance their clinical assessment but highlighted that it would not replace clinical judgement. Clinicians also considered how a test would impact the patient experience and time to treatment, emphasising that it should be minimally invasive and have a quick turnaround time. Young women said a test would be acceptable if endorsed by a trustworthy clinician. CONCLUSIONS: PID remains a challenging diagnosis. Development of a minimally invasive and sufficiently accurate diagnostic test would be acceptable to young women and benefit some clinicians, although no test would completely replace an experienced clinician's judgement in making a PID diagnosis.

Telehealth for sexual and reproductive health issues: a qualitative study of experiences of accessing care during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Medicare, the health insurance system underpinning free healthcare in Australia, introduced free telehealth items in 2020 in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Their uptake among healthcare providers was significant, including among general practitioners and sexual health services. Here, we report people's experiences of accessing sexual and reproductive health (SRH)-related care via telehealth collected as part of a survey exploring the impact of COVID on SRH health. METHODS: This study utilises qualitative data from two online surveys conducted in 2020. Surveys were advertised through social media and professional and personal networks. Anyone aged≥18years and living in Australia was eligible to participate. Respondents were asked whether they accessed care for their SRH via telehealth. A free-text question asking for further detail about their experience was analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 114/1070 respondents (10.7%) accessed healthcare services via telehealth for SRH-related reasons within the previous 4weeks. Three themes were identified from 78 free-text comments: (1) accessibility and convenience of telehealth; (2) appropriateness of telehealth for SRH issues; and (3) connecting and communicating with clinicians via telehealth. Respondents had a wide range of experiences. Telehealth improved access to services for some participants, and it was appropriate for some, but not all SRH issues. Difficulties connecting with clinicians on both an interpersonal and technical level was a key barrier to a satisfactory patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth can offer a viable alternative to face-to-face care, providing patients can overcome key connection and communication barriers.

Sexual behaviour during COVID-19: a repeated cross-sectional survey in Victoria, Australia.

BACKGROUND: During 2020, the State of Victoria (Australia) experienced two COVID-19 waves. Both resulted in community lockdowns followed by eased restrictions. We examined variation of sexual behaviour in Victorians over time during COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a repeated online survey at four timepoints corresponding with two lockdown (LD1, LD2) and two reduced restriction (RR1, RR2) periods in Victoria. A convenience sample of participants aged ≥18years was recruited via social media and asked about their recent (past 4weeks) sexual behaviour. Using multivariable logistic regression, we investigated variation in sexual behaviour between surveys. RESULTS: A total of 1828 surveys were completed; 72% identified as female, 69% were aged 18-29years, 90% were metropolitan residents. The proportion reporting recent partnered sex ranged from 54.9% (LD2) to 70.2% (RR1). Across all timepoints, the most common sexual partners were regular (81.5%, n =842) and 10.8% (n =111) reported casual partners (e.g. hook-ups). Compared with LD1, respondents were >2-fold more likely to report casual partner(s) during reduced restrictions (RR1: aOR 2.0; 95% CI 1.1-3.7; RR2: aOR 2.8; 95% CI 1.3-5.9). Across all timepoints, 26.6% (n =486) reported using dating apps. Compared with LD1, dating app use for face-to-face activities (e.g. dates, hook-ups) was >4-fold higher during reduced restrictions (RR1: aOR 4.3; 95% CI 2.3-8.0; RR2: aOR 4.1; 95% CI 1.9-8.8). App use for distanced activities (e.g. sexting, virtual dates) was highest during LD1 (48.8%) than other periods. CONCLUSIONS: In this convenience sample, self-reported sexual behaviours fluctuated between lockdowns and reduced restrictions. While dating apps may provide a mechanism for virtual connections, this may be temporary until physical connections are possible.

‘I didn’t want to visit a doctor unless it was extremely necessary’: perspectives on delaying access to sexual and reproductive health care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia from an online survey.

Australians were subject to a series of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions throughout 2020. Although accessing medical care was allowable, concerns were raised that people were avoiding healthcare services. We explored young Australians' reasons for delaying seeking sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care during the pandemic, using data from two cross-sectional surveys. The surveys included a question asking whether respondents had delayed accessing care during the pandemic. Free-text responses from young Australians (aged 18-29 years) were analysed using conventional content analysis. In all, 1058 under-30s completed a survey, with 262 (24.8%) reporting they had delayed seeking SRH care. Of these, 228 (87.0%) respondents provided a free-text comment. Participants who commented were predominantly female (86.4%) and had a median age of 23 years (interquartile range 20-26 years). Most commonly, respondents delayed testing for sexually transmissible infections, cervical cancer screening, and contraceptive care. Some delayed accessing care despite experiencing symptoms. Participants avoided seeking care due to concerns about contracting COVID-19, uncertainty about accessing care during restrictions and anxiety relating to accessing SRH care. Although some reported a reduced need for SRH care, others required but did not access care. Young people should be reassured that SRH issues are a valid reason to access services, especially when experiencing symptoms.

Management of Chlamydia Cases in Australia (MoCCA): protocol for a non-randomised implementation and feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: The sexually transmitted infection chlamydia can cause significant complications, particularly among people with female reproductive organs. Optimal management includes timely and appropriate treatment, notifying and treating sexual partners, timely retesting for reinfection and detecting complications including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). In Australia, mainstream primary care (general practice) is where most chlamydia infections are diagnosed, making it a key setting for optimising chlamydia management. High reinfection and low retesting rates suggest partner notification and retesting are not uniformly provided. The Management of Chlamydia Cases in Australia (MoCCA) study seeks to address gaps in chlamydia management in Australian general practice through implementing interventions shown to improve chlamydia management in specialist services. MoCCA will focus on improving retesting, partner management (including patient-delivered partner therapy) and PID diagnosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MoCCA is a non-randomised implementation and feasibility trial aiming to determine how best to implement interventions to support general practice in delivering best practice chlamydia management. Our method is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Normalisation Process Theory. MoCCA interventions include a website, flow charts, fact sheets, mailed specimen kits and autofills to streamline chlamydia consultation documentation. We aim to recruit 20 general practices across three Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland) through which we will implement the interventions over 12-18 months. Mixed methods involving qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses (observation, interviews, surveys) from staff and patients will be undertaken to explore our intervention implementation, acceptability and uptake. Deidentified general practice and laboratory data will be used to measure pre-post chlamydia testing, retesting, reinfection and PID rates, and to estimate MoCCA intervention costs. Our findings will guide scale-up plans for Australian general practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from The University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (Ethics ID: 22665). Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and study reports.

Patient delivered partner therapy for chlamydia infection is used by some general practitioners, but more support is needed to increase uptake: findings from a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) describes the giving of a prescription or antibiotics by an index case with chlamydia to their sexual partners. PDPT has been associated with higher numbers of partners receiving treatment. In Australia, general practitioners (GPs) previously expressed negative views about PDPT. Health authority guidance for PDPT has since been provided in some areas. We investigated recent use and perceptions of PDPT for chlamydia among GPs in Australia. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted an online survey comprising multiple-choice and open-ended questions to investigate GPs' chlamydia management practices, including PDPT. Logistic regression identified factors associated with ever offering PDPT. A directed content analysis of free-text data explored GPs' perceptions towards PDPT. RESULTS: The survey received responses from 323 GPs; 85.8% (n=277) answered PDPT-focused questions, providing 628 free-text comments. Over half (53.4%) reported never offering PDPT, while 36.5% sometimes and 10.1% often offered PDPT. GPs more likely to offer PDPT were aged ≥55 years (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.8), worked in non-metropolitan areas (AOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.4) and jurisdictions with health authority PDPT guidance (AOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.9). Qualitative data demonstrated that many GPs recognised PDPT's potential to treat harder to engage partners but expressed hesitancy to offer PDPT because they considered partners attending for care as best practice. GPs emphasised a case-by-case approach that considered patient and partner circumstances to determine PDPT suitability. To alleviate medicolegal concerns, many GPs indicated a need for professional and health authority guidance that PDPT is permissible. They also desired practical resources to support its use. CONCLUSION: GPs appear to accept the place of PDPT as targeted to those who may otherwise not access testing or treatment. Availability of health authority guidance appears to have supported some GPs to incorporate PDPT into their practice.

eSexualHealth: Preferences to use technology to promote sexual health among men who have sex with men and trans and gender diverse people.

Objectives: Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and trans and gender diverse (TGD) people are disproportionately affected by poorer sexual health outcomes compared to heterosexual populations. We aimed to explore the preferences of GBMSM and TGD for using eHealth for sexual health (eSexualHealth). Methods: We distributed an anonymous online survey from April to August 2021among the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and other people of diverse sexuality or gender (LGBTIQA+) community in Australia. The survey collected data on sociodemographic characteristics and sexual behaviors, their preferences for app/website functions and preferred HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing reminders. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the characteristics of the study population. Free-text responses were thematically analyzed. Results: Of 466 participants included, most identified as cisgender males (92.7%). The median age was 48 [interquartile range (IQR): 37-56]. For accessing sexual health-related information, 160 (34.6%) would use either a website or an app, 165 (32.7%) would prefer a website, 119 (25.8%) would prefer an app, and 33 (7.1%) would not use either platform. There was no significant difference between GBMSM and TGD people. Participants were most interested in information about STI clinics, HIV/STI hotspots, and sexual health education. Participants stressed the need for privacy and anonymity when using eHealth. Regarding reminders to test for HIV/STIs, receiving regular SMS was most popular (112/293, 38.2%), followed by regular emails (55/293 18.8%) and a reminder function on their phone (48/293, 16.4%). Conclusion: Our study suggests a promising future for eHealth among GBMSM and TGD people. Sexual health is still a stigmatized area, and eHealth may circumvent barriers this population faces.

Diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease and barriers to conducting pelvic examinations in Australian general practice: findings from an online survey.

Background Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is under-diagnosed globally, particularly in primary care, and if untreated may cause reproductive complications. This paper investigates PID diagnosis by Australian general practitioners (GPs) and barriers to their conducting a pelvic examination. METHODS: An online survey investigating Australian GPs' chlamydia management, including PID diagnosis, was conducted in 2019. From 323 respondents, 85.8% (n = 277) answered multiple-choice questions about PID and 74.6% (n = 241) answered a free-text question about barriers to conducting pelvic examinations. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified factors associated with conducting pelvic examinations. Barriers to performing pelvic examinations were explored using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most GPs indicated that they routinely ask female patients with a sexually transmissible infection about PID symptoms, including pelvic pain (86.2%), abnormal vaginal discharge (95.3%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (89.5%), and dyspareunia (79.6%). Over half reported routinely conducting speculum (69.0%) and bimanual pelvic (55.3%) examinations for women reporting pelvic pain. Female GPs were more likely to perform speculum [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 4.6; 95%CI: 2.6-8.2] and bimanual pelvic examinations (AOR 3.7; 95%CI: 2.1-6.5). GPs with additional sexual health training were more likely to routinely perform speculum (AOR 2.2; 95%CI: 1.1-4.2) and bimanual pelvic examinations (AOR 2.1; 95%CI: 1.2-3.7). Barriers to pelvic examinations were patient unwillingness and/or refusal, GP gender, patient health-related factors, time pressures, and GP reluctance. CONCLUSION: Although GPs typically ask about PID symptoms when managing patients with chlamydia, they are not consistently able or willing to perform pelvic examinations to support a diagnosis, potentially reducing capacity to diagnose PID.

'It's literally giving them a solution in their hands': the views of young Australians towards patient-delivered partner therapy for treating chlamydia.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) is a method for providing antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of an index patient with an STI by means of a prescription or medication that the index patient gives to their sexual partner(s). Qualitative research regarding barriers and enablers to PDPT has largely focused on the views of healthcare providers. In this study, we sought to investigate the views of young people (as potential health consumers) regarding PDPT for chlamydia. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with young Australian men and women. Participants were asked to provide their views regarding PDPT from the perspective of both an index patient and partner. Purposive and snowball sampling was used. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: We interviewed 22 people (13 women, 9 men) aged 18-30 years, 15 of whom had previously been tested for chlamydia. Despite none having previous knowledge of or experience using PDPT, all viewed it positively and thought it should be widely available. Participants reported that they would be willing to give PDPT to their sexual partners in situations where trust and comfort had been established, regardless of the relationship type. Protecting their partners' privacy was essential, with participants expressing reluctance to provide their partners' contact details to a doctor without consent. Beyond logistical benefits, PDPT was viewed as a facilitator to partner notification conversations by offering partners a potential solution. However, most interviewees indicated a preference to consult with a healthcare provider (GP or pharmacist) before taking PDPT medication. Participants indicated that legitimacy of information when navigating a chlamydia diagnosis was crucial and was preferably offered by healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Though PDPT is unlikely to fully replace partners' interactions with healthcare providers, it may facilitate partner notification conversations and provide partners greater choice on how, when and where they are treated.

Epididymitis rates in Australian hospitals 2009-2018: ecological analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate rates of acute epididymitis diagnosed in Australian hospital settings. METHODS: Yearly hospital admission and emergency department (ED) rates of epididymitis as primary diagnoses were calculated for 15-44-year-old men for three states (Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland) from 2009 to 2014 using population denominators. Zero inflated Poisson regression models were used to analyse variation in rates by year, age, and residential area. Additionally, we investigated national epididymitis admission trends from 2009 to 2018 using generalised linear models. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, there was a total of 7375 admissions and 17 281 ED presentations for which epididymitis was the main reason for care. Most epididymitis diagnoses (94.0% in admissions, 99.7% in EDs) were without abscess, and 2.5% of admissions were for chlamydial epididymitis. Almost a quarter (23.3%) of epididymitis diagnosed in EDs resulted in hospital admission. In 2014, the epididymitis rate per 100 000 men was 38.7 in admissions and 91.9 in EDs. Comparing 2014 with 2009, the overall epididymitis diagnosis rate increased in admissions by 32% (adjusted incident rate ratio (aIRR) 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.44) and in ED attendances by 40% (aIRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.49). By age, the highest rates were among men 35-44 years in admissions and men 15-24 years in EDs. National admission rates of epididymitis during 2009-2018 showed a similar pattern. CONCLUSION: Rates of epididymitis diagnosis in hospital admission and ED presentations increased. Different age-related rates in these settings suggest a different aetiology or differential severity by age group.

Love during lockdown: findings from an online survey examining the impact of COVID-19 on the sexual health of people living in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Australia recorded its first case of COVID-19 in late January 2020. On 22P March 2020, amid increasing daily case numbers, the Australian Government implemented lockdown restrictions to help 'flatten the curve'. Our study aimed to understand the impact of lockdown restrictions on sexual and reproductive health. Here we focus on sexual practices. METHODS: An online survey was open from the 23PP April 2020 to 11P May 2020. Participants were recruited online via social media and other networks and were asked to report on their sexual practices in 2019 and during lockdown. Logistic regression was used to calculate the difference (diff) (including 95% CIs) in the proportion of sex practices between time periods. RESULTS: Of the 1187 who commenced the survey, 965 (81.3%) completed it. Overall, 70% were female and 66.3% were aged 18-29 years. Most (53.5%) reported less sex during lockdown than in 2019. Compared with 2019, participants were more likely to report sex with a spouse (35.3% vs 41.7%; diff=6.4%; 95% CI 3.6 to 9.2) and less likely to report sex with a girl/boyfriend (45.1% vs 41.8%; diff=-3.3%; 95% CI -7.0 to -0.4) or with casual hook-up (31.4% vs 7.8%; 95% CI -26.9 to -19.8). Solo sex activities increased; 14.6% (123/840) reported using sex toys more often and 26.0% (218/838) reported masturbating more often. Dating app use decreased during lockdown compared with 2019 (42.1% vs 27.3%; diff= -14.8%; 95% CI -17.6 to -11.9). Using dating apps for chatting/texting (89.8% vs 94.5%; diff=4.7%; 95% CI 1.0 to 8.5) and for setting up virtual dates (2.6% vs 17.2%; diff=14.6%; 95% CI 10.1 to 19.2) increased during lockdown. CONCLUSION: Although significant declines in sexual activity during lockdown were reported, people did not completely stop engaging in sexual activities, highlighting the importance of ensuring availability of normal sexual and reproductive health services during global emergencies.

The Views of Patients and Partners Toward Patient-Delivered Partner Therapy for Chlamydia: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of research on patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) has focused on its impact on reinfections. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence regarding the acceptability of PDPT by patients and partners for chlamydia infection. METHODS: Three electronic databases were searched in March 2019 using terms related to PDPT. Studies were included if they reported on patient or partner acceptance of PDPT for chlamydia and were conducted in high-income countries. Actual and perceived acceptabilities of PDPT were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included: 24 quantitative, 3 qualitative, and 6 mixed methods. Most were clinic based. Quantitative data showed that participants' perceived willingness to give PDPT to their partner(s) ranged from 44.7% to 96.3% (median, 84%), and 24% to 71% (median, 65%) of people who offered PDPT for their partner(s) accepted it. Partners' perceived willingness to accept ranged from 42.7% to 67% (median, 62%), and actual acceptance ranged from 44.7% to 80% (median, 77%). Those in longer-term relationships were generally more likely to accept PDPT; however, beyond this, we identified few clear trends. Qualitative studies found that convenience of PDPT and assurance of partner treatment were benefits, whereas partners not seeing a health care professional was viewed as a downside. Packaging that appeared legitimate and coaching on delivering PDPT were facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Because patients bear responsibility for the success of PDPT, this information is crucial in clinical settings. Acceptance, perceived and real, of PDPT was generally high. Patients are best placed to determine whether PDPT is appropriate for them, and it should be offered as an option.

Patient-delivered partner therapy for chlamydia in Australia: can it become part of routine care?

Background Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) is a method for an index patient to give treatment for genital chlamydia to their sexual partner(s) directly. In Australia, PDPT is considered suitable for heterosexual partners of men and women, but is not uniformly endorsed. We explored the policy environment for PDPT in Australia and considered how PDPT might become a routine option. METHODS: Structured interviews were conducted with 10 key informants (KIs) representing six of eight Australian jurisdictions and documents relevant to PDPT were appraised. Interview transcripts and documents were analysed together, drawing on KIs' understanding of their jurisdiction to explore our research topics, namely the current context for PDPT, challenges, and actions needed for PDPT to become routine. RESULTS: PDPT was allowable in three jurisdictions (Victoria, New South Wales, Northern Territory) where State governments have formally supported PDPT. In three jurisdictions (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania), KIs viewed PDPT as potentially allowable under relevant prescribing regulations; however, no guidance was available. Concern about antimicrobial stewardship precluded PDPT inclusion in the South Australian strategy. For Queensland, KIs viewed PDPT as not allowable under current prescribing regulations and, although a Medicine and Poisons Act was passed in 2019, it is unclear if PDPT will be possible under new regulations. Clarifying the doctor-partner treating relationship and clinical guidance within a care standard were viewed as crucial for PDPT uptake, irrespective of regulatory contexts. CONCLUSION: Endorsement and guidance are essential so doctors can confidently and routinely offer PDPT in respect to professional standards and regulatory requirements.

Trends in diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease in an Australian sexual health clinic, 2002-16: before and after clinical audit feedback.

Background A 2006 Australian sexual health clinic audit of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) diagnosis rates found variability between doctors. Doctors were given audit feedback towards increasing diagnosis and reducing variability. The clinic implemented other improvements to increase capacity. This study investigated PID diagnosis time trends before and after feedback. METHODS: Yearly PID diagnosis rates for women aged 16-49 years attending the clinic (2002-16) were calculated. Using multivariable generalised linear mixed models, adjusted for patient risk and lower genital infection (any of chlamydia, gonorrhoea, Mycoplasma genitalium, bacterial vaginosis) and stratified by before (2002-June 2007) and after (July 2007-2016) feedback, we assessed if PID rates changed over time, accounting for between-doctor variability. RESULTS: During 2002-16, 144 doctors undertook 84476 female consultations and diagnosed 1755 (2.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-2.2) with PID. Comparing 2002-03 to 2015-16, the yearly PID rate increased; 0.8% (37/4836) to 2.9% (209/7088). Comparing before and after feedback more women reported any symptoms at triage (35.1%-47.2%) or had a lower genital infection diagnosed (10.1%-14.9%). After feedback, PID rates increased by 8% yearly (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.08, 95% CI 1.06-1.11), but were unchanged (adjusted IRR (aIRR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.03) after adjustment for patient characteristics. Factors associated with PID were self-reported symptoms, younger age and a lower genital infection. Lower variability in doctor-specific rates was observed after feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing PID diagnosis rates appeared to be driven by a greater female patient risk profile, influenced by increased capacity following service improvements.