You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 88, Issue 5
  • What is it about STI research that is unappealing? An experience of conducting sexual health research in general practice in England

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Miscellaneous
Letter
What is it about STI research that is unappealing? An experience of conducting sexual health research in general practice in England
  1. Carrie Llewellyn,
  2. Helen Smith,
  3. Alex Pollard
  1. Division of Public Health & Primary Care, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Carrie Llewellyn, Division of Public Health & Primary Care, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Mayfield House, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9PH, UK; c.d.llewellyn{at}bsms.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2012-050585

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Developing sexual health services in primary care is recommended as a way of improving patient choice and increasing the capacity of testing services.1 ,2 Before implementing such service provisions it is essential to understand the requirements of patients. We have recently completed a survey study of sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing service users preferences for STI testing services (Miners AH, Llewellyn CD, Pollard A, et al, unpublished data, 2012). In order to have greater generalisability, we recruited patients from general practice, contraception and sexual health services and genito-urinary medicine clinics.

    Engaging general practices and their patients was challenging. Initially, we approached three primary care …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0407-13211). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval Ethical approval was granted by Brighton West Research Ethics Committee (08/H1111/86).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.