Evaluation of knowledge and utility of the 2014 Australian sexually transmissible infection and HIV testing guidelines for asymptomatic men who have sex with men among general practitioners in Sydney
David J. Templeton A B C H , Phillipe C. G. Adam D , Rajesh Varma C E , Phillip Read C F , Chistopher Bourne C E , Shih-Chi Kao A G and on behalf of the Sexually Transmissible Infections in Gay Men Action Group (STIGMA)A RPA Sexual Health, Sydney Local Health District, 16 Marsden Street, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
B Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Jane Foss Russell Building, City Road, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
C Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity in Society, Wallace Wurth Building, UNSW Sydney, High Street, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia.
D Centre for Social Research in Health, John Goodsell Building, UNSW Sydney, High Street, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia.
E Sydney Sexual Health Centre, Sydney Hospital, PO Box 1614, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia.
F Kirketon Road Centre, PO Box 22, Kings Cross, NSW 1340, Australia.
G HIV and Related Programs (HARP) Unit, Population Health, Sydney Local Health District, 16 Marsden Street, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
H Corresponding author. Email: david.templeton@sswahs.nsw.gov.au
Sexual Health 15(1) 96-98 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH17113
Submitted: 28 June 2017 Accepted: 6 August 2017 Published: 20 September 2017
Abstract
The Australian sexually transmissible infection and HIV testing guidelines for asymptomatic men who have sex with men were updated in 2014. An evaluation study targeting Sydney-based general practitioners was conducted among 85 clinicians. Respondents with knowledge of guideline recommendations were significantly more likely to feel comfortable asking men who have sex with men about their sexual history (98.1% vs 81.3%, P = 0.039), and to recommend at least annual testing (94.0% vs 68.8%, P = 0.015), 3-month retesting after chlamydia or gonorrhoea treatment (96.2% vs 73.3%, P = 0.017) and syphilis testing with routine HIV monitoring bloods (90.2% vs 57.1%, P = 0.037). Familiarity with the guidelines was associated with a range of positive outcomes on general practitioners’ clinical practice. Novel approaches are required to ensure more widespread distribution of future guidelines.
References
[1] The Kirby Institute. Bloodborne viral and sexually transmitted infections in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: surveillance and evaluation report 2016. Sydney: The Kirby Institute, UNSW Australia: 2016.[2] Holt M, Hull P, Lea T, Guy R, Bourne C, Prestage G, Zablotska I, de Wit J, Mao L. Comprehensive testing for, and diagnosis of, sexually transmissible infections among Australian gay and bisexual men: findings from repeated, cross-sectional behavioural surveillance, 2003–2012. Sex Transm Infect 2014; 90 208–15.
| Comprehensive testing for, and diagnosis of, sexually transmissible infections among Australian gay and bisexual men: findings from repeated, cross-sectional behavioural surveillance, 2003–2012.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Grulich AE, de Visser RO, Smith AM, Rissel CE, Richters J. Sex in Australia: sexually transmissible infection and blood-borne virus history in a representative sample of adults. Aust N Z J Public Health 2003; 27 234–41.
| Sex in Australia: sexually transmissible infection and blood-borne virus history in a representative sample of adults.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Templeton DJ, Read P, Varma R, Bourne C. Australian sexually transmissible infection and HIV testing guidelines for asymptomatic men who have sex with men 2014: a review of the evidence. Sex Health 2014; 11 217–29.
| Australian sexually transmissible infection and HIV testing guidelines for asymptomatic men who have sex with men 2014: a review of the evidence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993; 342 1317–22.
| Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2c%2FkvVOmug%3D%3D&md5=df4becc0cccfadf7ebb8d4054ae6d738CAS |
