CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareReproductive tract infections researchHealth Policy Implementation Science

A short educational intervention on communication skills improves the quality of screening for Chlamydia in GPs in Belgium: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Verhoeven, Veronique, Avonts, Dirk, Vermeire, Etienne, Debaene, Luc, Royen, Paul Van·2005·Patient Education and Counseling
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2004.05.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

An accurate algorithm for screening for chlamydial infections is available in general practice, but GPs experience numerous barriers to sexually transmitted infections (STI) counselling. In this study we assessed if a short educational package, under the form of a commented video footage on communication skills, was helpful in implementing the screening strategy. A cluster randomised controlled trial was carried out in 36 general practitioners in Antwerp, Belgium. Main outcome measures were: number of patients included in the risk assessment, number of patients tested, and proportion of appropriately tested patients. The results show that GPs in the intervention group did not include more patients overall, but that the quality of the screening process was significantly better (81.6% versus 56.2% appropriate tests, P = 0.02). Conclusively, GPs who participated in a short educational package on communication skills, selected eligible candidates for screening more accurately and decreased the risk of overscreening.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2004.05.001

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Twenty-three of the included studies had been included in the previous version of the review, but three studies from that review were excluded because their interventions were not assessed as meeting the criteria for tailoring.

    “Twenty‐three of the studies had been included in the previous version of the review, but we excluded three studies from that review because the interventions were not assessed on this occasion as meeting the criteria for tailoring (Davies 2002; Sehgal 2002; Verhoeven 2005).”

    From Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice (2015) · cites this paper as Verhoeven 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Verhoeven, V., Avonts, D., Vermeire, E., Debaene, L., & Royen, P. V.
Affiliations
University of Antwerp (BE)
ORCID
Royen, Paul Van
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-04
Volume
57
Issue
1
Pages
101-105
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pec.2004.05.001
OpenAlex
W2087976638
Cited by
26
References
20
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
chlamydia screening, sexually transmitted infections, general practitioners, communication skills, educational intervention, video-based training, screening quality, overscreening, risk assessment, primary care
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Analysis of Variance, Belgium, Chlamydia Infections, Clinical Competence, Communication, Decision Trees, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Pamphlets, Physician-Patient Relations, Physician's Role, Physicians, Family, Teaching Materials, Videotape Recording, Cluster Analysis, Chi-Square Distribution, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Total Quality Management, Risk Assessment, Patient Selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review