Disclosure of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is central to prevention and control, yet many adolescents and young people (AYP) delay or avoid disclosure. This qualitative study set out to identify what influences AYP decisions to disclose their STI status and to whom, framed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. The research was conducted in Lusaka, Zambia, and focused on AYP aged 15–24.
The study used qualitative methods between April and August 2024. Data sources comprised twenty in-depth interviews with AYP who had participated in a cross-sectional STI prevalence survey; interviewees included those diagnosed with an STI, those self-reporting STI symptoms, and those reporting ever having been treated. The study also conducted five focus group discussions (FGDs) with AYP and six FGDs with community members. The authors analysed data thematically and organised findings according to the COM-B framework (capability, opportunity — physical and social — and motivation).
Participants described limited knowledge about STIs as a barrier to disclosure. Gaps in understanding of STI causes, symptoms, and treatment options reduced young people’s perceived ability to recognise their condition and to communicate it to others. In the COM-B model, this lack of information undermined capability to initiate disclosure conversations or to seek appropriate support.
Physical opportunity — the material context that enables or constrains behaviour — was shaped by the availability and accessibility of youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. Where such services existed and were approachable, AYP felt more able to disclose and to seek treatment. Conversely, limited access to adolescent-oriented SRH services reduced opportunities for safe disclosure and follow-up care.
Social opportunity encompassed community attitudes, household and relationship dynamics, and both community and self-stigma. Participants reported that stigma surrounding STIs, concern about social consequences, and unsupportive family or partner relationships discouraged disclosure. By contrast, existing supportive social networks — peers, trusted family members, or sympathetic community contacts — facilitated disclosure and subsequent help-seeking. The study highlights that disclosure decisions are embedded within interpersonal and community contexts rather than occurring solely at the individual level.
Motivational factors included concern for personal health, individual values and beliefs, and the desire to obtain support while unwell. These elements increased willingness to disclose. However, fear of negative reactions from partners, family, or the community, and worries about blame or reputational harm, decreased motivation. The authors report that fear of adverse responses was a salient deterrent to disclosure across participants.
The study’s findings indicate that interventions aiming to improve STI disclosure and treatment uptake among AYP should adopt a systems perspective. Recommendations derived from the COM-B mapped results include:
The authors emphasise that targeting both individual-level knowledge and broader social contexts will likely be needed to increase disclosure and subsequent STI control behaviours in this population.
The research received ethical approvals from multiple committees, including the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zambia (REF.No.4805-2024), the Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (REF: 29990), the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Tropical Medicine (REF.1748/24), the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Antwerp (ID 6436), and the Zambian National Health Research Authority (REF:NHREB005/25/03/2024). All participants provided written informed consent to publish anonymised information.
Funding for the work was declared from the Gates Foundation (INV-057895). The authors state that all data produced in the study are available upon reasonable request.
Note: this article is a preprint posted on medRxiv and has not been peer reviewed. The report should therefore not be used to directly guide clinical practice without further validation.