Register      Login
Sexual Health Sexual Health Society
Publishing on sexual health from the widest perspective
RESEARCH ARTICLE

‘Do it yourself’ sexual health care: the user experience

Paula Baraitser A D , Kirsty Collander Brown B , Zachary Gleisner A , Vikki Pearce C , Usha Kumar A and Michael Brady A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Camberwell Sexual Health Centre, 100 Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK.

B The Print House, 18 Ashwin Street, London E8 3DL, UK.

C Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust, Aneurin Bevan House, 81 Commercial Road, London E1 1RD, UK.

D Corresponding author. Email: Paula.Baraitser@nhs.net

Sexual Health 8(1) 23-29 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH10029
Submitted: 6 March 2010  Accepted: 3 June 2010   Published: 24 January 2011

Abstract

Objectives: To describe client experience of self-management within a busy walk-in, sexual health service. Self-management in this context is self-registration and take-home pregnancy tests, chlamydia (Chlamydia trachomatis) and gonorrhoea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae) tests, or condoms dispensed from a free vending machine. Methods: Twenty-four in-depth, semi-structured interviews with users; 19 structured written reports from mystery shoppers paid to visit the service and report their experience; demographic details of those using the self-management option from the clinic database and 40 h of recorded observation in the clinic waiting room. Results: Between 2 September 2008 and 1 September 2009, 18 657 people had 28 545 attendances at the service. Of these, 1845 (6.5%) attendances were self-managed by 1555 individuals (8.3% of all clients). Of those who self-managed, 646 (35%) obtained a chlamydia and gonorrhoea test only, 597 (32%) obtained condoms only and 488 (27%) obtained a pregnancy test only. Users valued the opportunity to self-manage because of the reduced waiting times, autonomy and privacy that such a service offers. Some prefer the additional support offered within a clinical consultation. Users made personalised decisions about self-management based on time pressure, need for additional services and preferred source of support. Users often required help and advice from client support workers to complete the self-management process. This created problems with confidentiality. Conclusions: Self-management is an acceptable option within sexual health services if informal support is available. Self-management options in clinical services could mean that 8% of clients at 6% of visits do not need to see a clinician, thus freeing up clinical capacity.

Graphical Abstract Image

Additional keywords: health care, self-management.


Acknowledgements

This work was part of a program to redesign sexual health services in south-east London funded by the Guys and St Thomas’ Charity.


References


[1] Department of Health. Self-care – a real choice. Self-care support – a practical option. London: The Stationery Office; 2005.

[2] Baraitser P,  Pearce V,  Holmes J,  Boynton P. Chlamydia testing in community pharmacies: evaluation of a feasibility pilot in south east London. Qual Saf Health Care 2007; 16 303–7.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

[3] Roy S,  Caillouette J,  Faden J,  Roy T,  Ramos D. Improving appropriate use of antifungal medications: the role of an over the counter vaginal pH self test device. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2003; 11 209–16.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[4] Shew M,  Hellerstedt W,  Sieving R,  Smith A,  Fee R. Prevalence of home pregnancy testing among adolescents. Am J Public Health 2000; 90 974–6.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

[5] Gaydos C,  Dwyer K,  Barnes M,  Rizzo Price P,  Wood B,  Flemming T, et al. Internet based screening for Chlamydia tracomatis to reach non-clinic populations with mailed self administered vaginal swabs. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33 451–7.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[6] Tideman R,  Chen M,  Pitts M,  Ginige S,  Slaney M,  Fairley C. A randomised controlled trial comparing computer-asssisted with face-to-face sexual history taking in a clinical setting. Sex Transm Infect 2007; 83 52–6.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

[7] Ryan A,  Greenfield S,  McManus R,  Wilson S. Self-care – has DIY gone too far? Br J Gen Pract 2006; 56 907–8.
PubMed |

[8] Needham C. Realising the potential of co-production: negotiating improvements in public services. Soc Policy Soc 2008; 7 221–31.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[9] Wilson S,  Ryan A,  Greenfield S,  Clifford S,  Holdre R,  Pattison H, et al. Self-testing for cancer: a community survey. BMC Cancer 2008; 8 102.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[10] Department of Health. Public attitudes to self care: baseline survey. London: The Stationery Office; 2005.

[11] Baraitser P,  Pearce V,  Walsh N,  Cooper R,  Collander Brown K,  Holmes J, et al. Professional patients as service evaluators: a sexual health service pilot. Health Expect 2008; 11 54–62.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[12] Doshi JS,  French RS,  Evans HE,  Wilkinson CL. Feasibility of a self-completed history questionnaire in women requesting repeat combined hormonal contraception. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2008; 34 51–4.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[13] Powell-Jackson R,  Glasier A,  Cameron S. Benefits of using a digital video disk for providing information about abortion to women requesting termination of pregnancy. Contraception 2010; 81 537–41.
Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |




AGynaecology training associates are lay women trained to teach pelvic examination while acting as the patient.

BThis audit was undertaken by Dr Aysha Butt, specialist registrar in general practice.