Would men who have sex with men support less frequent screening for asymptomatic chlamydia and gonorrhoea to improve antibiotic stewardship? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) taking pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are recommended to have screening for asymptomatic chlamydia and gonorrhoea every 3months with high rates of asymptomatic chlamydia and gonorrhoea detected. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this screening interval and there is increasing concern about antibiotic consumption and its impact on antimicrobial resistance. There have been calls to reconsider this frequent screening for chlamydia and gonorrhoea. We conducted interviews with MSM to assess their attitudes to 3-monthly chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with MSM living in Victoria, Australia. Participants were aged 20-62years and had been taking PrEP for at least 6months. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and these data were investigated through reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen interviews were conducted in August 2021. Participants were hesitant about reducing the screening frequency and reported that testing gave them a sense of security. While MSM recognised antimicrobial resistance was a concern, it did not impact their sexual behaviour, with many participants stating they would rather continue to take antibiotics to treat infections rather than adopt preventative measures such as condom use. Positive attitudes towards screening interval changes are more likely when PrEP patients are informed about the risks and benefits of sexual healthcare recommendations. CONCLUSION: While MSM on PrEP were initially hesitant to changes in screening frequency, changes may be acceptable if transparent communication, presenting the benefits and harms of screening and treatment, was delivered by a trusted healthcare professional.

Considerations for conducting a young person's health assessment in the general practice setting: Insights from key informants in Victoria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There have been calls for a Medicare Benefits Schedule rebate to support a young person's health assessment in general practice. The aim of this study was to understand Victorian providers' needs and perspectives about implementing young people's health assessments in general practice. METHOD: Focus groups and interviews were conducted over Zoom with current general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses (PNs) and practice managers (PMs). A qualitative descriptive approach and conventional content analysis were used. RESULTS: Two focus groups and five interviews were conducted between September and November 2021. Participants (11 GPs, nine PNs and three PMs) represented metropolitan (n = 11), regional (n = 10) and rural (n = 2) Victoria. Key facilitators to implementing a young person's health assessment included established clinic systems and staff roles as well as the potential to empower young people. Key barriers included scheduling logistics and billing structures. DISCUSSION: Key informants generated substantive stakeholder perspectives to aid planning and implementing young people's health assessments in general practice.

Will a fee-for-service payment for a young people's health assessment in general practice increase the detection of health risk behaviours and health conditions? Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RAd Health Trial).

INTRODUCTION: Adolescence is a period of major transition in physical, cognitive, social and emotional development, and the peak time for the onset of mental health conditions, substance use disorders and sexual and reproductive health risks. Prevention and treatment during this time can improve health and well-being now and into the future. However, despite clinical guidelines recommending annual preventive health assessments for young people, health professionals cite lack of consultation time and adequate funding as key barriers. This trial aims to determine whether a specific fee-for-service ('rebate payment') for a young person's health assessment, is effective and cost-effective at increasing the detection and management of health risk behaviours and conditions among young people. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in Australian general practice. 42 general practices (clusters) will be randomly allocated 1:1 to either an intervention arm where general practitioners receive a rebate payment for each annual health assessment undertaken for 14-24-year-olds during a 2 year study period, or a control arm (no rebate). The rebate amount will be based on the Medical Benefits Schedule (Australia's list of health professional services subsidised by the Australian Government) currently available for similar age-based assessments. Our primary outcome will be the annual rate of risk behaviours and health conditions recorded in the patient electronic health record (eg, alcohol/drug use, sexual activity and mental health issues). Secondary outcomes include the annual rate of patient management activities related to health risks and conditions identified (eg, contraception prescribed, sexually transmitted infection tests ordered). A process evaluation will assess acceptability, adoption, fidelity and sustainability of the rebate; an economic evaluation will assess its cost-effectiveness. Analyses will be intention-to-treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from University of Melbourne Human and Research Ethics Committee (2022-23435-29990-3). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000114741.