BMJ  2005;330:940 (23 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F (published 4 April 2005)

Primary care

Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study

¹ Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, ² Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS6 6JL, ³ Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, ⁴ Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Finkenhubelweg 11, Berne, CH-3012, Switzerland, ⁵ Milne Centre, United Bristol Healthcare Trust, Bristol BS21 7LR, ⁶ Public Health Laboratory Service, Birmingham B9 5SS, ⁷ Public Health Laboratory Service, Bristol BS2 8EL

Objective To measure the coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and the prevalence of infection in the general population in the United Kingdom. To investigate factors associated with these measures.

Design Cross sectional survey of people randomly selected from general practice registers. Invitation to provide a specimen collected at home.

Setting England.

Participants 19 773 men and women aged 16-39 years invited to participate in screening.

Main outcome measures Coverage and uptake of screening; prevalence of chlamydia.

Results Coverage of chlamydia screening was 73% and was lower in areas with a higher proportion of non-white residents. Uptake in 16-24 year olds was 31.5% and was lower in men, younger adults, and practices in disadvantaged areas. Overall prevalence of chlamydia was 2.8% (95%confidence interval 2.2% to 3.4%) in men and 3.6% (3.1% to 4.9%) in women, but it was higher in people younger than 25 years (men 5.1%; 4.0% to 6.3%; women 6.2%; 5.2% to 7.8%). Prevalence was higher in the subgroup of younger women who were harder to engage in screening. The strongest determinant of chlamydial infection was having one or more new sexual partners in the past year.

Conclusions Postal chlamydia screening was feasible, but coverage was incomplete and uptake was modest. Lower coverage of postal screening in areas with more non-white residents along with poorer uptake in more deprived areas and among women at higher risk of infection could mean that screening leads to wider inequalities in sexual health.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project

Tracy E Roberts, Suzanne Robinson, Pelham M Barton, Stirling Bryan, Anne McCarthy, John Macleod, Matthias Egger, and Nicola Low
BMJ 2007 335: 291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use

Nicola Low, Anne McCarthy, Tracy E Roberts, Mia Huengsberg, Emma Sanford, Jonathan A C Sterne, John Macleod, Chris Salisbury, Karl Pye, Aisha Holloway, Andrea Morcom, Rita Patel, Suzanne M Robinson, Paddy Horner, Pelham M Barton, and Matthias Egger
BMJ 2006 332: 14-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Screening for chlamydia by post is feasible but incomplete
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Full Text]

Related external webpages:

NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Roberts, T. E, Robinson, S., Barton, P. M, Bryan, S., McCarthy, A., Macleod, J., Egger, M., Low, N. (2007). Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project. BMJ 335: 291-291 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Robinson, S., Roberts, T., Barton, P., Bryan, S., Macleod, J., McCarthy, A., Egger, M., Sanford, E., Low, N., for the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Projec, (2007). Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies project. Sex. Transm. Infect. 83: 276-281 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Cook, R. L, Ostergaard, L., Hillier, S. L, Murray, P. J, Chang, C.-C. H, Comer, D. M, Ness, R. B, for the DAISY study team, (2007). Home screening for sexually transmitted diseases in high-risk young women: randomised controlled trial. Sex. Transm. Infect. 83: 286-291 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sripada, S, Logan, S, McGillivray, S, Mckenzie, H, Templeton, A, Hamilton, M, Sutherland, A, Bhattacharya, S (2007). Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in men attending three different secondary healthcare settings. Sex. Transm. Infect. 83: 282-285 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Turner, K M E, Adams, E J, LaMontagne, D S, Emmett, L, Baster, K, Edmunds, W J (2006). Modelling the effectiveness of chlamydia screening in England. Sex. Transm. Infect. 82: 496-502 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Skidmore, S., Horner, P., Herring, A., Sell, J., Paul, I., Thomas, J., Caul, E. O., Egger, M., McCarthy, A., Sanford, E., Salisbury, C., Macleod, J., Sterne, J. A. C., Low, N., for the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Projec, (2006). Vulvovaginal-Swab or First-Catch Urine Specimen To Detect Chlamydia trachomatis in Women in a Community Setting?. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 4389-4394 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Uuskula, A, Kangur, K, McNutt, L A (2006). Barriers to effective STI screening in a post-Soviet society: results from a qualitative study.. Sex. Transm. Infect. 82: 323-326 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Roberts, T E, Robinson, S, Barton, P, Bryan, S, Low, N, for the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Group, (2006). Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.. Sex. Transm. Infect. 82: 193-200 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Novak, D P, Karlsson, R B (2006). Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study.. Sex. Transm. Infect. 82: 142-147 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Low, N., McCarthy, A., Roberts, T. E, Huengsberg, M., Sanford, E., Sterne, J. A C, Macleod, J., Salisbury, C., Pye, K., Holloway, A., Morcom, A., Patel, R., Robinson, S. M, Horner, P., Barton, P. M, Egger, M. (2006). Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use. BMJ 332: 14-19 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• (2005). Postal screening for chlamydia is unsatisfactory. Sex. Transm. Infect. 81: 452-452 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Chlamydia- engaging the men

Roger B Karlsson, et al.
bmj.com, 30 Apr 2005 [Full text]

Chlamydia Postal Testing - another perspective

Kirsten Kernaghan, et al.
bmj.com, 3 May 2005 [Full text]

Engaging men in chlamydia screening: Authors' response

John Macleod, et al.
bmj.com, 9 May 2005 [Full text]

How plausible is possible? Quantifying uncertainty by simple sensitivity analysis

Julius Atashili, et al.
bmj.com, 30 Jul 2005 [Full text]

Re: How plausible is possible? Quantifying uncertainty by simple sensitivity analysis

John Macleod, et al.
bmj.com, 15 Aug 2005 [Full text]