ABSTRACT
Background Using programme theory we report a process evaluation of Accelerated Partner Therapy (APT) - a novel contact tracing (partner notification) intervention for people with chlamydia as part of the LUSTRUM trial.
Methods Following the specification and visualisation of initial programme theory, questions of context dependency, fidelity, and functioning of putative intervention mechanisms were addressed using deductive thematic analysis of qualitative data collected through focus groups and individual interviews with purposively sampled health care professionals (n=34 from ten sites), index patients (n=15), and sex partners who received APT (n=17). Analyses were independent of trial results.
Results APT was anticipated to change key interactions and sexual health service organisation to accommodate safe and optimal remote care. APT training and resources transformed key interactions as anticipated. Overall intervention fidelity was good and APT was well-liked by those who delivered and received it. Putative intervention mechanisms worked mostly as expected although those concerned with local implementation sometimes worked counter to expectations. APT and its trial struggled to be implemented at scale across all sites. Considerable pressures drove services to constantly adapt to achieve efficiencies. APT was perceived as time consuming without visible impact on perceived patient numbers in clinic curtailing positive feedback loops driving normalisation.
Discussion Using programme theory we show an evidence-based, theoretically informed, overview of how APT worked dynamically within the context of the trial and within UK sexual health services. We find a mixed picture of a well-liked, intuitive, coherent intervention struggling to gain purchase within an already pressured service.
Trial registration ISRCTN15996256
Study protocol doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034806
Ethical approval This study received ethical approval from London—Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0773). Findings will be published with open access licences.
Funding 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).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN15996256
Clinical Protocols
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/3/e034806
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:
London Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0773)
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
Data Availability
Data are available upon reasonable request to the study authors
