Objectives As most chlamydia cases are asymptomatic, regular testing and timely management may be necessary for control. We aimed to determine the preferences of people living in Hong Kong for chlamydia testing and management services.
Methods An online panel of sexually active individuals living in Hong Kong completed the survey with two discrete choice experiments (DCEs). The first DCE examined the preferred attributes of a chlamydia testing service (cost, location, appointment time, speed of results, delivery of results and availability of other STI testing). The second DCE examined the preferred attributes of a chlamydia management service (cost, access to patient-delivered partner therapy, location, travel time, type of person consulted and attitude of staff).
Results In total, 520 individuals participated: average age 36.8 years (SD 9.9), 40% males and 66% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Choosing to test was most influenced by cost, followed by speed of results, delivery of results, extra STI testing, appointment available and the least important was the location of testing. Choosing to attend for management was most influenced by staff’s attitude, followed by cost, who they consult, access to patient-delivered partner therapy, travel time and the least important was treatment location.
Conclusion To design effective chlamydia testing and management services, it is vital to respond to patient needs and preferences. For people living in Hong Kong, cost and staff attitude were the most important factors for deciding whether to test or be managed for chlamydia, respectively.
- chlamydia infections
- health services research
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
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.
Handling editor Adam Huw Bourne
Contributors JJO: Conceptualizing, Funding – acquisition, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – Original draft. CKF, JSH, KMET, RB: Writing – review & editing. WCW: Conceptualizing, Funding – acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Funding Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a grant from the Hong Kong Medical Research Fund (18171282). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing and publishing the report. JJO is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant (GNT1193955). CKF is supported by an NHMRC Leadership Investigator Grant (GNT1172900).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.