Are printed sexually transmissible infection materials for patients appropriate? A physician perspective
Asaduzzaman Khan A C and David Plummer BA Social Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia.
B School of Education, University of the West Indies, Port of Spain, Trinidad.
C Corresponding author. Email: a.khan2@uq.edu.au
Sexual Health 5(3) 307-308 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH08012
Submitted: 11 February 2008 Accepted: 25 February 2008 Published: 6 August 2008
Abstract
The data from a postal survey of 409 general practitioners (GPs) practicing in New South Wales are analysed to explore GPs’ concerns, if any, about available printed information materials on sexually transmissible infections (STI) for patients. Just over half (55%) of GPs considered the materials for patients to be inadequate and/or inappropriate with 18% considering the materials as too technical for many patients and 13% considering the materials mostly out of date. Over a fifth reported that either STI materials were not available in their clinic or they did not know where to get those materials.
Additional keywords: information materials.
Introduction
It is well recognised that good quality information on sexually transmissible infections (STI) can help patients to empower themselves in health-care decision-making and to access a range of other benefits.1,2 However, there appears to be scant research evidence which explores the adequacy of patient information materials. This is especially crucial for Australia where knowledge about STI is low among the general population.3–5 The present study examined the appropriateness of the patients’ information on STI from the perspective of their general practitioners (GPs), who are often regarded as a reliable source of information to many patients.6
Methods
The present study used data extracted from a cross-sectional postal survey on the management of STI by GPs practicing in New South Wales, Australia (reported elsewhere7). Of the 900 eligible GPs, a total of 409 returned the completed questionnaire (response rate = 45.4%). The present paper examines GPs’ views/concerns about available printed STI materials for patients that they had seen. It is worth mentioning that no specific STI material was sent to the participating GPs for their assessment. The study participants were asked to choose as many responses as appropriate from a list response options (Table 1). An analysis of association was carried out, using logistic regression, to profile GPs who had a particular type of concern. Nine explanatory variables were initially considered: GPs’ age, sex, place of graduation, postgraduate training in medicine, postgraduate training in STI, type of employment, area of practice, type of practice, and diagnosis of an STI in the month preceding the survey.
![]() |
Results
Just over half of GPs (55%) considered the STI printed materials for patients to be inadequate and/or inappropriate (Table 1). Over one-fifth reported that STI information materials for patients were not available in their practice (23%), or that they did not know where to get STI materials for patients (22%), or that not enough was produced for clinics (22%).
The analysis of association showed that female GPs, compared with their male counterparts, were more likely to report the available STI printed materials as ‘mostly out of date’ (OR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.13–3.72). Only available in English was a common concern reported predominantly by GPs who were overseas graduates (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.33–3.84), practicing in metropolitan areas (OR = 4.17, 95% CI = 2.06–8.40) and working full time (OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.10–3.77). Not enough produced for clinics was a common complaint among GPs who graduated overseas (OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 112–3.31) and worked in metropolitan areas (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.13–3.09).
Discussion
Clear, concise and consistent education messages regarding STI are invaluable for quality care.8–10 However, many practitioners in the present study expressed their concerns about the appropriateness and suitability of printed STI information for patients. Of great concern is that one in two GPs considered the available printed STI materials to be inadequate or inappropriate, whereas approximately one-quarter indicated the materials to be mostly out of date or not comprehensive. Such findings have implications given the low levels of STI knowledge among the general population.
Although in Australia STI materials are published in at least six languages in addition to being published in English, 18% of GPs indicated their belief that the materials were available only in English. Such a concern is more common among GPs who graduated overseas and/or worked in metropolitan areas. One explanation could be that not being locally trained, overseas graduates may well not find it as easy to access these pamphlets, which no one seems particularly aware of anyway. Clearly better awareness of what is available is warranted.
Although informed decision on testing, treatment and partner management can only be made when sufficient accurate information is available, we found widespread concerns of practitioners about printed STI information materials for patients. The current study highlights the need for exploration of patients’ views as such materials should be designed to meet their needs.11
Ethical approval
Obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of New England, Australia.
Funding
An Institutional Research Grant from the University of New England supported the study.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Acknowledgements
We are deeply indebted to Professors Rafat Hussain and Victor Minichiello for their valuable inputs in developing and implementing the survey. We are also grateful to Dr David Bradford, Past President of the Australasian College of Sexual Health Physicians for his ongoing support and valuable advice during the study. Our thanks also go to Drs Suzanne Robertson, Elizabeth Pringle, Miriam Grotowski and Jan Browne for their valuable input in developing the study instruments. We are very grateful to all GPs who participated in the study. An Institutional Research Grant from the University of New England supported the study.
[1] Rogstad K, Bramham L, Lowbury R, Kinghorn G. Use of a leaflet to replace verbal pretest discussion for HIV: effects and acceptability. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79 243–5.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[2] Das S, Huengsberg M, Radcliffe K. Impact of information leaflets on HIV test uptake amongst GUM clinic attendees: an update. Int J STD AIDS 2004; 15 422–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[3] Giles M, Garland S. A study of women’s knowledge regarding human papillomavirus infection, cervical cancer and human papillomavirus vaccines. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 46 311–15.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[4] Hillier L, Warr D, Haste B. Rural youth: HIV/STD knowledge levels and sources of information. Aust J Rural Health 1998; 6 18–26.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[5] Pitts M, Dyson S, Rosenthal D, Garland S. Knowledge and awareness of human papillomavirus (HPV): attitudes towards HPV vaccination among a representative sample of women in Victoria, Australia. Sex Health 2007; 4 177–80.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[6] Browne J, Minichiello V. Issues in clinical care of people being tested/treated for sexually transmissible infections. Venereology 1998; 11 26–30.
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[7] Khan A, Plummer D, Hussain R, Minichiello V. Sexual risk assessment in general practice: evidence from a NSW survey. Sex Health 2007; 4 1–8.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[8] Garland S. Human papillomavirus vaccines: challenges to implementation. Sex Health 2006; 3 63–5.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[9] Braun V, Gavey N. ‘With the best of reasons’: cervical cancer prevention policy and the suppression of sexual risk factor information. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48 1463–73.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[10] McCaffery K, Forrest S, Waller J, Desai M, Szarewski A, Wardle J. Attitudes towards HPV testing: a qualitative study of beliefs among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in the UK. Br J Cancer 2003; 88 42–6.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
[11] McIntosh A, Shaw C. Barriers to patient information provision in primary care: patients’ and general practitioners’ experiences and expectations of information for low back pain. Health Expect 2003; 6 19–29.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)