2013 UK national guideline for consultations requiring sexual history taking. Clinical Effectiveness Group British Association for Sexual Health and HIV

Brook, Gary; Bacon, Lesley; Evans, Ceri; McClean, Hugo; Roberts, Colin; Tipple, Craig; Winter, Andrew; Sullivan, Ann

doi:10.1177/0956462413512807

Cited by 42 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This includes patient risk assessment that takes account of sexual risk as well as substance use, as per the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) guidelines, [50] which recommend that recreational drug history is incorporated into sexual history taking for all patients attending for STI screening. It also argues for the need for healthcare providers to be aware of trends in drug use in their locality, as well as their possible effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illicit drug use and its association with key sexual risk behaviours and outcomes: Findings from Britain’s third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWe explore the hypothesis that using illicit drugs other than, or in addition to, cannabis is associated with sexual risk behaviour and sexual health outcomes in the British population.MethodsWe analysed data, separately by gender, reported by sexually-active participants (those reporting > = 1 partners/past year) aged 16–44 years (3,395 men, 4,980 women) in Britain’s third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3), a probability survey undertaken 2010–12 involving computer-assisted personal-interview and computer-assisted self-interview. Analyses accounted for the stratification, clustering and weighting of the data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios.ResultsUse of illicit drugs other than, or in addition to, cannabis in the past year was reported by 11.5% (95%CI:10.4%-12.8%) of men and 5.5% (4.8%-6.3%) of women. Use of these types of drugs was more common among those <35 years, those who reported poor general and/or sexual health behaviours, e.g. binge drinking > = weekly (age-adjusted ORs, aAORs, 10.91 (6.27–18.97) men; 9.95 (6.11–16.19) women); having > = 2 condomless partners in the past year (aAOR:5.50 (3.61–8.39) men; 5.24 (3.07–8.94) women). Participants reporting illicit drug use were more likely (than those who did not) to report sexual health clinic attendance (ORs after adjusting for age, sexual identity and partner numbers: 1.79 (1.28–2.51) men; 1.99 (1.34–2.95) women), chlamydia testing (1.42 (1.06–1.92) men; 1.94 (1.40–2.70) women), unplanned pregnancy (2.93 (1.39–6.17) women), and among men only, sexually transmitted infection diagnoses (3.10 (1.63–5.89)).ConclusionsIn Britain, those reporting recent illicit drug use were more likely to report other markers of poor general and sexual health. They were also more likely to attend sexual health clinics so these should be considered appropriate settings to implement holistic interventions to maximise health gain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illicit drug use and its association with key sexual risk behaviours and outcomes: Findings from Britain’s third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The history should include a description of symptoms and duration (44,273,274). The sexual history should focus on the 4-weeks period prior to onset of symptoms (to cover the look back period for LGV and gonorrhoea) (275).…”

Section: Diagnosis: History and Examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

2016 United Kingdom national guideline on the sexual health care of men who have sex with men

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This guideline is intended for use in UK Genitourinary medicine clinics and sexual health services but is likely to be of relevance in all sexual health settings, including general practice and Contraception and Sexual Health (CASH) services, where men who have sex with men (MSM) seek sexual health care or where addressing the sexual health needs of MSM may have public health benefits. For the purposes of this document, MSM includes all gay, bisexual and all other males who have sex with other males and both cis and trans men. This document does not provide guidance on the treatment of particular conditions where this is covered in other British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) Guidelines but outlines best practice in multiple aspects of the sexual health care of MSM. Where prevention of sexually transmitted infections including HIV can be addressed as an integral part of clinical care, this is consistent with the concept of combination prevention and is included. The document is designed primarily to provide guidance on the direct clinical care of MSM but also makes reference to the design and delivery of services with the aim of supporting clinicians and commissioners in providing effective services. Methodology This document was produced in accordance with the guidance set out in the BASHH CEG’s document ‘Framework for guideline development and assessment’ published in 2010 at http://www.bashh.org/guidelines and with reference to the Agree II instrument. Following the production of the updated framework in April 2015, the GRADE system for assessing evidence was adopted and the draft recommendations were regraded. Search strategy (see also Appendix 1) Ovid Medline 1946 to December 2014, Medline daily update, Embase 1974 to December 2014, Pubmed NeLH Guidelines Database, Cochrane library from 2000 to December 2014. Search language English only. The search for Section 3 was conducted on PubMed to December 2014. Priority was given to peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals, although for many issues evidence includes conference abstracts listed on the Embase database. In addition, for ‘Identification of problematic recreational drug and alcohol use’ section and ‘Sexual problems and dysfunctions in MSM’ section, searches included PsycINFO. Methods Article titles and abstracts were reviewed and if relevant the full text article was obtained. Priority was given to randomised controlled trial and systematic review evidence, and recommendations made and graded on the basis of best available evidence. Piloting and feedback The first draft of the guideline was circulated to the writing group and to a small group of relevant experts, third sector partners and patient representatives who were invited to comment on the whole document and specifically on particular sections. The revised draft was reviewed by the CEG and then reviewed by the BASHH patient/public panel and posted on the BASHH website for public consultation. The final draft was piloted before publication. Guideline update The guidelines will be reviewed and revised in five years’ time, 2022.

show abstract

“…98,99 The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) recommends that all these variables are recorded as part of a patient consultation, and they are therefore intended to be feasible for collection in routine care. 100 The GUMCADv3 reporting system was piloted in two phases, with revisions made in phase 2 based on clinic feedback and data quality issues from phase 1.…”

Section: Chapter 3 Work Package 2: Triage Tool Development Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual risk reduction interventions for patients attending sexual health clinics: a mixed-methods feasibility study

King

Llewellyn

Shahmanesh

et al. 2019

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to represent a major public health challenge. There is evidence that behavioural interventions to reduce risky sexual behaviours can reduce STI rates in patients attending sexual health (SH) services. However, it is not known if these interventions are effective when implemented at scale in SH settings in England. Objectives The study (Santé) had two main objectives – (1) to develop and pilot a package of evidence-based sexual risk reduction interventions that can be delivered through SH services and (2) to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine effectiveness against usual care. Design The project was a multistage, mixed-methods study, with developmental and pilot RCT phases. Preparatory work included a systematic review, an analysis of national surveillance data, the development of a triage algorithm, and interviews and surveys with SH staff and patients to identify, select and adapt interventions. A pilot cluster RCT was planned for eight SH clinics; the intervention would be offered in four clinics, with qualitative and process evaluation to assess feasibility and acceptability. Four clinics acted as controls; in all clinics, participants would be consented to a 6-week follow-up STI screen. Setting SH clinics in England. Participants Young people (aged 16–25 years), and men who have sex with men. Intervention A three-part intervention package – (1) a triage tool to score patients as being at high or low risk of STI using routine data, (2) a study-designed web page with tailored SH information for all patients, regardless of risk and (3) a brief one-to-one session based on motivational interviewing for high-risk patients. Main outcome measures The three outcomes were (1) the acceptability of the intervention to patients and SH providers, (2) the feasibility of delivering the interventions within existing resources and (3) the feasibility of obtaining follow-up data on STI diagnoses (primary outcome in a full trial). Results We identified 33 relevant trials from the systematic review, including videos, peer support, digital and brief one-to-one sessions. Patients and SH providers showed preferences for one-to-one and digital interventions, and providers indicated that these intervention types could feasibly be implemented in their settings. There were no appropriate digital interventions that could be adapted in time for the pilot; therefore, we created a placeholder for the purposes of the pilot. The intervention package was piloted in two SH settings, rather than the planned four. Several barriers were found to intervention implementation, including a lack of trained staff time and clinic space. The intervention package was theoretically acceptable, but we observed poor engagement. We recruited patients from six clinics for the follow-up, rather than eight. The completion rate for follow-up was lower than anticipated (16% vs. 46%). Limitations Fewer clinics were included in the pilot than planned, limiting the ability to make strong conclusions on the feasibility of the RCT. Conclusion We were unable to conclude whether or not a definitive RCT would be feasible because of challenges in implementation of a pilot, but have laid the groundwork for future research in the area. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16738765. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

2013 UK national guideline for consultations requiring sexual history taking. Clinical Effectiveness Group British Association for Sexual Health and HIV

Cited by 42 publications

References 29 publications

Illicit drug use and its association with key sexual risk behaviours and outcomes: Findings from Britain’s third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3)

Illicit drug use and its association with key sexual risk behaviours and outcomes: Findings from Britain’s third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3)

2016 United Kingdom national guideline on the sexual health care of men who have sex with men

Sexual risk reduction interventions for patients attending sexual health clinics: a mixed-methods feasibility study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About