Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Sexual difficulties service provision within sexual health services in the UK: a casualty of postcode lottery and commissioning?
  1. Jane Ashby1,
  2. Nadia Ahmed1,
  3. David Goldmeier2
  4. On behalf of the BASHH Sexual Dysfunction Specialist Interest Group
  1. 1 Sexual Health and HIV, Central and North West London NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2 Genitourinary Medicine and HIV, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nadia Ahmed, Sexual Health and HIV, Central and North West London NHS trust, London WC1E 6JB, UK; nadahm311{at}

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.

In the UK, sexual dysfunction (SD) services within sexual health services (SHS) have historically been subject to geographical variation. Services in many areas have had limited or no budget within service specifications and at times have been viewed as not being part of core SHS business. Recent changes in commissioning arrangements for SHS have resulted in a reduction in the overall budget for SHS provision in many parts of the country. The changes saw commissioning move from centralised National Health Service (NHS) to local authorities taking responsibility for planning, purchasing and monitoring of services for sexual health including HIV prevention and testing but not HIV care and management. Although this resulted in more autonomy about how much and what exactly is funded, after a short hiatus, local authorities began procuring SHS using tender processes. Since these changes, there …

View Full Text


  • Handling editor Anna Maria Geretti

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the design, analysis and writing of the article.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

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