Informing the design of a digital intervention to support sexually transmissible infection care in general practice: a qualitative study exploring the views of clinicians
Melis Gezer A , Barbara Hunter
B , Jane S. Hocking A , Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis B and Jane L. Goller A *
A Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Vic., Australia.
B Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Abstract
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.
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).
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.
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.
Keywords: Australia, chlamydia, clinical decision support, digital, electronic medical record, general practice, gonorrhoea, primary care, STI management, STIs, syphilis.
References
3 Price MJ, Ades AE, Soldan K, Welton NJ, Macleod J, Simms I, et al. The natural history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women: a multi-parameter evidence synthesis. Health Technol Assess 2016; 20(22): 1-250.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
4 Goller JL, Fairley CK, De Livera AM, Chen MY, Bradshaw CS, Chow EP, et al. Trends in diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease in an Australian sexual health clinic, 2002–16: before and after clinical audit feedback. Sex Health 2019; 16(3): 247-53.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
5 Trojian TH, Lishnak TS, Heiman D. Epididymitis and orchitis: an overview. Am Fam Physician 2009; 79(7): 583-7.
| Google Scholar |
7 Young J, Eley D, Fahey P, Patterson E, Hegney D. Enabling research in general practice: increasing functionality of electronic medical records. Aust Fam Physician 2010; 39(7): 506-9.
| Google Scholar |
8 Yeung A, Temple-Smith M, Spark S, Guy R, Fairley CK, Law M, et al. Improving chlamydia knowledge should lead to increased chlamydia testing among Australian general practitioners: a cross-sectional study of chlamydia testing uptake in general practice. BMC Infect Dis 2014; 14(1): 584.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
9 Hocking JS, Parker RM, Pavlin N, Fairley CK, Gunn JM. What needs to change to increase chlamydia screening in general practice in Australia? The views of general practitioners. BMC Public Health 2008; 8: 425.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
10 Australian Government. Future focused primary health care: Australia’s Primary Health Care 10 Year Plan 2022–2032. Canberra: Department of Health; 2022. Available at https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/australias-primary-health-care-10-year-plan-2022-2032
11 Chiang J, Furler J, Boyle D, Clark M, Manski-Nankervis J-A. Electronic clinical decision support tool for the evaluation of cardiovascular risk in general practice: a pilot study. Aust Fam Physician 2017; 46(10): 764-8.
| Google Scholar |
12 Manski-Nankervis J-A, Biezen R, Thursky K, Boyle D, Clark M, Lo S, et al. Developing a clinical decision support tool for appropriate antibiotic prescribing in Australian general practice: a simulation study. Med Decis Making 2020; 40(4): 428-37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
13 Hunter B, Biezen R, Alexander K, Lumsden N, Hallinan C, Wood A, et al. Future health today: codesign of an electronic chronic disease quality improvement tool for use in general practice using a service design approach. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e040228.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
14 Patel B, Peiris D, Usherwood T, Li Q, Harris M, Panaretto K, et al. Impact of sustained use of a multifaceted computerized quality improvement intervention for cardiovascular disease management in Australian primary health care. J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6(10): e007093.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
15 Goyal MK, Fein JA, Badolato GM, Shea JA, Trent ME, Teach SJ, et al. A computerized sexual health survey improves testing for sexually transmitted infection in a pediatric emergency department. J Pediatr 2017; 183: 147-52.e1.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
16 Karas D, Sondike S, Fitzgibbon J, Redding M, Brown M. Using a clinical decision support tool to increase chlamydia screening across a large primary care pediatric network. Clin Pediatr 2018; 57(14): 1638-41.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
17 Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14: 26-33.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
18 Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 2012; 7: 37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
19 French S, Green S, O’Connor D, McKenzie J, Francis J, Michie S, et al. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci 2012; 7(1): 38.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
20 Kirk JW, Sivertsen DM, Petersen J, Nilsen P, Petersen HV. Barriers and facilitators for implementing a new screening tool in an emergency department: a qualitative study applying the Theoretical Domains Framework. J Clin Nurs 2016; 25(19-20): 2786-97.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
21 Mazza D, Chapman A, Michie S. Barriers to the implementation of preconception care guidelines as perceived by general practitioners: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13(1): 36.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
22 Mosavianpour M, Sarmast HH, Kissoon N, Collet J-P. Theoretical domains framework to assess barriers to change for planning health care quality interventions: a systematic literature review. J Multidiscip Healthc 2016; 9: 303-10.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
23 Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci 2017; 12(1): 77.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
24 Australasian Society for HIV Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine (ASHM). Australian STI management guidelines, for use in primary care. ASHM; 2021. Available at https://sti.guidelines.org.au/
25 Melbourne Sexual Health Centre. Health professionals. 2022. Available at https://www.mshc.org.au/health-professionals
26 Melbourne Sexual Health Centre. Let them know. Melbourne Sexual Health Centre. 2022. Available at https://letthemknow.org.au/
27 Zou H, Fairley CK, Guy R, Bilardi J, Bradshaw CS, Garland SM, et al. Automated, computer generated reminders and increased detection of gonorrhoea, chlamydia and syphilis in men who have sex with men. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(4): e61972.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
28 Gray RT, Callander D, Hocking JS, McGregor S, McManus H, Dyda A, et al. Population-level diagnosis and care cascade for chlamydia in Australia. Sex Transm Infect 2020; 96(2): 131-6.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
29 Laka M, Milazzo A, Merlin T. Factors that impact the adoption of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) for antibiotic management. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18(4): 1901.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
30 Hor CP, O’Donnell JM, Murphy AW, O’Brien T, Kropmans TJB. General practitioners’ attitudes and preparedness towards Clinical Decision Support in e-Prescribing (CDS-eP) adoption in the West of Ireland: a cross sectional study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2010; 10(1): 2.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
31 Wright M-O, Knobloch MJ, Pecher CA, Mejicano GC, Hall MC. Clinical decision support systems use in Wisconsin. WMJ 2007; 106(3): 126-9.
| Google Scholar |
32 Ford E, Edelman N, Somers L, Shrewsbury D, Lopez Levy M, van Marwijk H, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of electronic clinical decision support systems: a qualitative interview study with UK general practitioners. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2021; 21(1): 193.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
33 Harrison JD, Masya L, Butow P, Solomon M, Young J, Salkeld G, et al. Implementing patient decision support tools: moving beyond academia? Patient Educ Couns 2009; 76(1): 120-5.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
34 Westerbeek L, Ploegmakers KJ, de Bruijn G-J, Linn AJ, van Weert JC, Daams JG, et al. Barriers and facilitators influencing medication-related CDSS acceptance according to clinicians: a systematic review. Int J Med Inf 2021; 152: 104506.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
36 Kouri A, Yamada J, Lam Shin Cheung J, Van de Velde S, Gupta S. Do providers use computerized clinical decision support systems? A systematic review and meta-regression of clinical decision support uptake. Implement Sci 2022; 17(1): 21.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
37 Kwan JL, Lo L, Ferguson J, Goldberg H, Diaz-Martinez JP, Tomlinson G, et al. Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2020; 370: m3216.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
38 Bowring A, Gouillou M, Guy R, Kong F, Hocking J, Pirotta M, et al. Missed opportunities – low levels of chlamydia retesting at Australian general practices, 2008–2009. Sex Transm Infect 2012; 88(5): 330-34.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
