↓ Skip to main content

Public health implications of molecular point-of-care testing for chlamydia and gonorrhoea in remote primary care services in Australia: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Public health implications of molecular point-of-care testing for chlamydia and gonorrhoea in remote primary care services in Australia: a qualitative study
Published in
BMJ Open, April 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006922
Pubmed ID
Authors

L Natoli, R J Guy, M Shephard, D Whiley, S N Tabrizi, J Ward, D G Regan, S G Badman, D A Anderson, J Kaldor, L Maher, Basil Donovan, David Wilson, Handan Wand, Belinda Hengel, Annie Tangey, Christopher Fairley

Abstract

With accurate molecular tests now available for diagnosis of chlamydia and gonorrhoea (Chlamydia trachomatis (CT)/Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG)) at the point-of-care (POC), we aimed to explore the public health implications (benefits and barriers) of their integration into remote primary care in Australia. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposively selected group of 18 key informants reflecting sexual health, primary care, remote Aboriginal health and laboratory expertise. Participants believed that POC testing may decrease community prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and associated morbidity by reducing the time to treatment and infectious period and expediting partner notification. Also, POC testing could improve acceptability of STI testing, increase testing coverage and result in more targeted prescribing, thereby minimising the risk of antibiotic resistance. Conversely, some felt the immediacy of diagnosis could deter certain young people from being tested. Participants also noted that POC testing may reduce the completeness of communicable disease surveillance data given the current dependence on reporting from pathology laboratories. Others expressed concern about the need to maintain and improve the flow of NG antibiotic sensitivity data, already compromised by the shift to nucleic acid-based testing. This is particularly relevant to remote areas where culture viability is problematic. Results indicate a high level of support from clinicians and public health practitioners for wider access to CT/NG POC tests citing potential benefits, including earlier, more accurate treatment decisions and reductions in ongoing transmission. However, the data also highlight the need for new systems to avoid adverse impact on disease surveillance. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613000808741.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 108 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 24 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 28 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,225,412
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#15,555
of 22,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,847
of 264,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#234
of 337 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 337 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.