Objectives: To determine which of the options available to modernise genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in the UK are most acceptable to patients and potential patients; to assess whether the views of a general population sample differ from those of clinic attenders. .
Methods: A questionnaire was used to explore the acceptability of different ways of delivering sexual healthcare including the potential trade-off between convenience/range of services with cost/staffing constraints. Potential differences in responses by age, sex, ethnicity and current attendance at a GUM clinic were evaluated using multivariate analysis.
Results: 542 respondents in the community and 202 clinic attenders provided responses. Delivery of sexual healthcare by specialist nurses and general practitioners was acceptable to 81% and 72% of interviewees, respectively, assuming common protocols were adhered to. The proportion of individuals who would accept a consultation with a nurse increased to 91% if the waiting time for an appointment could be reduced as a result. Men were less likely to accept a consultation with a nurse (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.79), and Asian (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.64) and other black (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.87) ethnic groups were less likely to accept a consultation with a general practitioner. 44% of patients preferred walk-in clinics even if waiting times for an appointment were reduced to 48 h.
Conclusion: Delivery of sexual healthcare by nurses and general practitioners was generally found to be acceptable, although this varies by patient sex and ethnicity. Some differences exist between the preferences of a general population sample compared with clinic attenders, but overall there is a high level of concordance. Walk-in clinics remain a popular choice even when appointment waiting times are short.
- GUM, genitourinary medicine
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Published Online First 6 June 2006
Funding: This study was supported by Heart of Birmingham tPCT.
Competing interests: JDCR and AC are associate editors of Sexually Transmitted Infections.
Ethics approval: Ethical approval was obtained for the study from South Birmingham LREC.
Contributors: JDCR: study concept, design, study management, manuscript preparation; AC: design, data analysis, manuscript preparation; JS: design, manuscript preparation; LF: data collection, study management; GG: data collection, study management.