Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies with primary care professionals (PCP)

From: Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review

Author

Location

Participants

Design

Theory

Method

Analysis

Allison et al. [74]

UK (England)

26 general practice staff (9 GPs; 13 PNs; 3 practice managers; 1 receptionist) who had participated in an intervention (m = 5; f = 23)

Qualitative

None

Semi-structured interviews

Modified framework analysis

Bilardi et al. [51]

Australia

43 GPs; intervention group n = 20 (m = 9; f = 11); control group n = 23 (m = 11; f = 12); age range = < 35–55+ years

Quantitative

None

Questionnaire following pilot cluster RCT

Descriptive (percentages) and mixed-effects logistic regression

Bilardi et al. [52]

Australia

14 GPs (m = 6; f = 8)

Age: 31–40 years = 4; 41–50 years = 4; 51–60 years = 6

Quantitative

None

Questionnaire following pilot RCT; interviewer-administered, open ended

Test for equality in proportion and thematic analysis

Calamai et al. [53]

UK

55 GPs and PNs (m = 13; f = 42)

Quantitative

None

Questionnaire

Descriptives: frequencies

Freeman et al. [54]

UK (England)

156 healthcare staff from 25 practices (72 GPs; 46 PNs; 8 practice managers; 23 administrators and receptionists; others)

Qualitative

None

Focus groups

Stepwise framework analytical approach (inductive)

Hocking et al. [55]

Australia

GPs (n = 21 interview; n = 225 questionnaires); mean age = 49.8 years

Mixed: qualitative and quantitative

None

Semi-structured interviews and postal questionnaire

Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics

Khan et al. [56]

Australia

409 GPs (m = 233; f = 176)

Quantitative

None

Questionnaire (paper, postal)

Correlation analysis, logistic regression

Lorch et al. [60]

Australia

556 GPs (m = 338; f = 218) and 118 PNs (m = 2; f = 116) from 143 clinics; age range = 30–59 years

Quantitative

None

Questionnaire (paper)

Descriptives, regression

Lorch et al. [57]

Australia

72 PNs (m = 1; f = 71)

Quantitative

None

Questionnaire

Chi-squared paired t test

Lorch et al. [58]

Australia

44 GPs (m = 27; f = 16)

Qualitative

None

Semi-structured interviews

Thematically using content analysis

Lorch et al. [59]

Australia

23 PNs (m = 1; f = 22); age range = 30–59 years

Qualitative

None

Semi-structured interviews

Thematically using content analysis

Lorimer et al. [61]

UK (Scotland)

18 GPs and 8 PNs

Qualitative

None

Semi-structured interviews (telephone)

Framework analysis with thematic coding

Ma and Clarke [62]

UK (England)

4 consultants in sexual and reproductive health, 1 consultant in public health, 1 chlamydia screening coordinator, 3 GPs and 3 PNs

Qualitative

None

Semi-structured interviews

Variation of thematic analysis

McKernon and Azariah [63]

New Zealand

76 staff participating in pilot trial: 5 receptionists, 5 clinical assistants, 24 nurses, 31 doctors, 10 practice managers (who were also doctors), and 4 operations managers

Quantitative

None

Questionnaire

Descriptives

McNulty et al. [64]

UK (England)

12 focus groups of GPs, PNs, practice managers, midwives, and district nurses (total n not reported)

Qualitative

None

Focus groups

Modified grounded theory approach utilising the constant comparative method

McNulty et al. [65]

UK (England)

General practice staff (GPs, PNs) from high/low testing rates and rural/urban areas (total n not reported)

Qualitative

None

Focus groups

Thematic analysis using constant comparative method

McNulty et al. [66]

UK (England)

Focus groups: 72 GPs, 46 PNs, 23 receptionists and administrators, 8 practice managers, 7 other staff.

Interviews: 5 GPs, 3 nurses, 1 receptionist, 2health care assistants, 1 manager.

Qualitative

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Semi-structured interviews (12) and focus groups (25)

Stepwise framework analytical approach

McNulty et al. [67]

UK (England)

9 chlamydia screening co-ordinators from areas with significant screening in general practice

Qualitative

None

Semi-structured interviews (telephone)

Interpretative phenomenological thematic approach

McNulty et al. [75]

UK (England), Estonia, Sweden, France

45general practice staff, 18 stakeholders, 13 trainers (England 25, Estonia 15, France 23; Sweden 13)

Qualitative

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Semi-structured interviews

Thematic analysis

Merritt et al. [68]

Australia

10 GPs from 6 practices

Uncontrolled before and after trial

None

Meetings every 2 month during intervention

Descriptive statistics

Perkins et al. [69]

UK (England)

13 GPs; 14 PNs; 15 practice receptionists; 11 practice managers

Qualitative

None

Semi-structured interviews

Open-coding method

Ricketts et al. [70]

UK (England)

29 general practice staff: 9 GPs; 13 PNs; 7 receptionists; from 8 high and low 7 screening intervention practices

Qualitative (evaluation of intervention)

Normalisation Process Theory

Semi-structured interviews

Thematic analysis (within a Normalisation Process Theory Framework)

Robertson and Williams [71]

UK (Wales)

PNs (7 qualitative; 33 quantitative)

Mixed: qualitative and quantitative

None

Semi-structured interviews and questionnaire

Descriptive statistics

Senok et al.  [72]

UK (Scotland)

13 GP’s, PNs and administrative staff

Feasibility study for a RCT and qualitative

None

In-depth interviews

Thematic analysis

Wallace et al. [73]

UK (England)

General practice staff

12 interviews; 5 GPs; 3 PNs; 1 practice manager; 3 receptionists.

55 questionnaires (m = 5; f = 50); 18 GPS; 26 PNs; 9 receptionists; 1 practice manager; 1 research nurse

Mixed: qualitative and quantitative

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Questionnaire (paper = 52; online = 3)

Quantitative: frequencies, t tests, chi-square tests

Qualitative: thematic analysis

  1. f female, GP general practitioner, m male, PN practice nurse, RCT randomised controlled trial