Abstract
Purpose This paper illustrates initial steps of an intervention optimisation process. Self-sampling packs for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and blood borne viruses (BBVs) are widely offered within the UK, yet have problems with reach and sample return rates. They have arisen without any formal intervention development.
Methods Eleven focus groups and seven interviews were conducted with convenience samples of patients recruited from sexual health clinics and members of the public in late 2017 (n=57). To enable intervention optimisation firstly we formulated initial programme theory situating the intervention. Secondly, we conducted an inductive appraisal of the behavioural system of using the pack to understand meaningful constituent behavioural domains. Subsequently we conducted a thematic analysis of barriers and facilitators to enacting each sequential behavioural domain in preparation for future behaviour change wheel analysis.
Results Overall, we found that self-sampling packs were acceptable. Our participants understood their overall logic and value as a pragmatic intervention that simultaneously reduced barriers to, and facilitated, individuals being tested for STIs. However, at the level of each behavioural domain (e.g., reading leaflets, returning samples), problems with the pack were identified as well as a series of potential optimisations which might widen the reach of self-sampling and increase the return of viable samples.
Conclusions This paper provides an example of a pragmatic approach to optimising an intervention already widely offered across the UK. The paper demonstrates the added value health psychological approaches make; systematically considering the context of the intervention, in addition to illuminating granular areas for improvement.
What is already known on this subject?
The use of self-sampling packs for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and blood borne viruses (BBVs) has been widely implemented without in-depth assessment of user engagement or theorisation
Some evidence suggests that the uptake of self-sampling packs, and the concomitant return of samples to enable diagnosis, are socially patterned
Despite increasing and widespread use of self-sampling packs across the UK, relatively little is currently known about their acceptability, or how they could be improved
What does this study add?
This study provides an illustrative example of using a preliminary programme theory to situate the problem to be addressed by intervention optimisation
The thematic analyses show that self-sampling packs offer a largely acceptable means to enabling STI and BBV testing and diagnosis; they remove many barriers to testing. However, several modifiable barriers to use endure, potentially reducing sample return and amplifying health inequalities
This study presents a range of barriers and facilitators to the various behavioural domains included within the use of self-sampling packs. It summarises the findings ready for subsequent behaviour change wheel analyses
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (reference number RP-PG-0614-20009).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval from Glasgow Caledonian University Research Ethics Committee (HLS/PSWAHS/A15/256) and NHS Ethics Approval (16/NI/0211) were obtained.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.