Table 1 Factors associated with patient preferences about routine GUM–GP clinic letter communication
Agreed to GUM clinic letter to GPDisagreed to GUM clinic letter to GPp Value95% CI for OR
Patient numbers187337
Gender0.7820.66–1.37
    Male112 (35%)206 (65%)
    Female75 (36%)131 (64%)
Sexual orientation0.0211.09–3.14
    Heterosexual166 (38%)273 (62%)
    MSM/bisexual21 (25%)64 (75%)
Age group0.160*0.32–1.21
    ⩾18*13 (26%)36 (74%)
    <18174 (37%)301 (63%)
Referral route for clinic attendance<0.0011.51–4.20
    GP referral (direct/indirect)†38 (55%)31 (45%)
    Other149 (33%)306 (67%)
Reason for clinic attendance0.6730.64–1.34
    Routine STI screen67 (34%)127 (66%)
    Other‡120 (36%)210 (64%)
HIV sero-status0.0810.90–4.53
    Positive13 (52%)12 (48%)
    Negative/unknown¶174 (35%)325 (65%)
STI diagnosis at clinic attendance0.0520.46–1.01
    Yes49 (30%)116 (70%)
    No138 (38%)221 (62%)
Patient assumption HIV test affects mortgage applications0.0050.26–0.79
    Yes18 (22%)64 (78%)
    No169 (38%)273 (62%)
Patient assumption HIV test affects life insurance applications0.0330.45–0.97
    Yes59 (30%)138 (70%)
    No128 (39%)199 (61%)
  • *The data was re-analysed following division into four age groups of roughly equal size: >20 years, 20–24 years, 25–34 years, <35 years and again the p value was non-significant.

  • †Direct and indirect referrals were also analysed individually. There was no significant difference in agreement to clinic letter between the two groups.

  • ‡The “other” group included patients who attended for a variety of reasons, including those who attended because of symptoms (209), as known contacts of an infection (64) and for a review appointment within the same care episode (28).

  • ¶Of this group 184 had never tested at our GUM department and 315 had tested negative.

  • GP, general practitioner; GUM, genitourinary medicine; MSM, men who have sex with men.