P095 General practitioner views towards patient delivered partner therapy for chlamydia infection in Australia

• Published in: Sexually transmitted infections Vol. 97; no. Suppl 1; p. A85
• Main Authors: Goller, J, Coombe, J, Bittleston, H, Bourne, C, Bateson, D, Vaisey, A, Tomnay, J, Donnell H, O, Garrett, C, Estcourt, C, Temple-Smith, M, Hocking, J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BMJ Publishing Group LTD 01.07.2021
• Subjects: Chlamydia; Content analysis; Australia
• ISSN: 1368-4973; 1472-3263
• DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2021-sti.224

BackgroundPatient delivered partner therapy (PDPT) refers to the process in which antibiotic treatment for chlamydia infection is prescribed or provided to an index case to pass onto their sexual partner/s. Since 2015, health authority guidance for PDPT has been provided in some areas of Australia. However evidence regarding PDPT use in Australia are limited. We investigated recent use and perceptions of PDPT for chlamydia among general practitioners (GPs) working in Australia.MethodsDuring 2019 we conducted an online survey comprising multiple-choice and open-ended questions to investigate GPs’ chlamydia management practices, including PDPT. We conducted logistic regression to identify factors associated with offering PDPT and directed content analysis of free-text data to explore GPs’ perceptions towards PDPT.ResultsA total of 323 GPs responded to the survey, 85.8% (n=277) answered PDPT-focused questions, providing 628 free-text comments. Over half (53.4%) reported never offering PDPT while 36.5% sometimes and 10.1% often offered PDPT. GPs more likely to offer PDPT were aged ≥55 years (adjusted odds ratio, AOR 2.8, 95%CI 1.4–5.7), worked in non-metropolitan areas (AOR 2.5, 95%CI 1.5–4.4) and in Australian States/Territories with health authority PDPT guidance (AOR 2.3, 95%CI 1.4–3.9). Qualitative data showed many GPs recognised PDPT’s potential to treat difficult to engage partners but expressed hesitancy to offer PDPT because they considered it best practice for partners to attend care. A case-by-case approach that considered patient and partner circumstances to determine PDPT suitability was emphasised. Many GPs indicated a need for professional and health authority guidance that PDPT is permissible and practical resources to support its use.ConclusionsGPs appear to accept the place of PDPT as targeted to those who may otherwise not access testing or treatment Availability of health authority guidance appears to have supported some GPs to incorporate PDPT into their practice.