Article Text

Download PDFPDF
One stop shop versus collaborative integration: what is the best way of delivering sexual health services?
  1. R S French1,
  2. C M Coope1,
  3. A Graham2,
  4. M Gerressu1,
  5. C Salisbury2,
  6. J M Stephenson1,
  7. the One-Stop Shop Evaluation Team1,2,3
  1. 1Centre for Sexual Health and HIV Research, The Mortimer Market Centre, Royal Free and University College London Medical School, University College London, off Capper Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK
  2. 2Academic Unit of Primary Care, Department of Community-Based Medicine, University of Bristol, The Grange, 1 Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1AU, UK
  3. 3Department of GUM, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Glossop Road, Sheffield SI0 2JF, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Rebecca French
 Centre for Sexual Health and HIV Research, Royal Free and University College Medical School, UCL, The Margaret Pike Centre, 73 Charlotte Street, London W1T 4PL, UK; rfrench{at}


Objectives: To examine various models of integrated and/or one stop shop (OSS) sexual health services (including general practice, mainstream specialist services, and designated young people’s services) and explore their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Methods: Literature review and interviews with key informants involved in developing the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV (n = 11).

Results: The paper focuses on five broad perspectives (logistics, public health, users, staff, and cost). Contraceptive and genitourinary medicine issues are closely related. However, there is no agreement about what is meant by having “integrated” services, about which services should be integrated, or where integration should happen. There are concerns that OSSs will result in over-centralisation, to the disadvantage of stand alone and satellite services. OSS models are potentially more user focused, but the stigma that surrounds sexual health services may create an access barrier. From staff perspectives, the advantages are greater career opportunities and increased responsibility, while the disadvantages are concern that OSSs will result in loss of expertise and professional status. Cost effectiveness data are contradictory.

Conclusion: Although there is a policy commitment to look at how integrated services can be better developed, more evidence is required on the impact and appropriateness of this approach.

  • GUM, genitourinary medicine
  • OSS, one stop shop
  • integration
  • one stop shop
  • sexual health
  • contraception
  • sexually transmitted diseases

Statistics from

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.


  • Funding: The One-Stop Shop Evaluation is supported by a grant from the Department of Health.

  • Competing interests: none.

  • Ethics: Ethical approval was gained via Trent Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee.

    This work was undertaken by the One-Stop Shop Evaluation Team. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health.