Coverage and uptake of systematic screening for genital chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross-sectional study (ClaSS Study Group)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Coverage and uptake of systematic screening for genital chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross-sectional study (ClaSS Study Group). / Macleod, John; Salisbury, C; Low, N; McCarthy, A; Sterne, JAC; Holloway, A; Patel, R; Sanford, E; Morcom, Andrea; Horner, P; Davey Smith, G; Skidmore, Susan; Herring, A; Caul, O; Hobbs, Frederick; Egger, M.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 330, 23.04.2005, p. 940-943.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Macleod, J, Salisbury, C, Low, N, McCarthy, A, Sterne, JAC, Holloway, A, Patel, R, Sanford, E, Morcom, A, Horner, P, Davey Smith, G, Skidmore, S, Herring, A, Caul, O, Hobbs, F & Egger, M 2005, 'Coverage and uptake of systematic screening for genital chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross-sectional study (ClaSS Study Group)', British Medical Journal, vol. 330, pp. 940-943. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F

APA

Macleod, J., Salisbury, C., Low, N., McCarthy, A., Sterne, JAC., Holloway, A., Patel, R., Sanford, E., Morcom, A., Horner, P., Davey Smith, G., Skidmore, S., Herring, A., Caul, O., Hobbs, F., & Egger, M. (2005). Coverage and uptake of systematic screening for genital chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross-sectional study (ClaSS Study Group). British Medical Journal, 330, 940-943. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F

Vancouver

Author

Macleod, John ; Salisbury, C ; Low, N ; McCarthy, A ; Sterne, JAC ; Holloway, A ; Patel, R ; Sanford, E ; Morcom, Andrea ; Horner, P ; Davey Smith, G ; Skidmore, Susan ; Herring, A ; Caul, O ; Hobbs, Frederick ; Egger, M. / Coverage and uptake of systematic screening for genital chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross-sectional study (ClaSS Study Group). In: British Medical Journal. 2005 ; Vol. 330. pp. 940-943.

Bibtex

@article{f05c2481a0844905b561103346c9dd0c,
title = "Coverage and uptake of systematic screening for genital chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross-sectional study (ClaSS Study Group)",
abstract = "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.",
author = "John Macleod and C Salisbury and N Low and A McCarthy and JAC Sterne and A Holloway and R Patel and E Sanford and Andrea Morcom and P Horner and {Davey Smith}, G and Susan Skidmore and A Herring and O Caul and Frederick Hobbs and M Egger",
year = "2005",
month = apr,
day = "23",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F",
language = "English",
volume = "330",
pages = "940--943",
journal = "British Medical Journal",
issn = "0959-8138",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coverage and uptake of systematic screening for genital chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross-sectional study (ClaSS Study Group)

AU - Macleod, John

AU - Salisbury, C

AU - Low, N

AU - McCarthy, A

AU - Sterne, JAC

AU - Holloway, A

AU - Patel, R

AU - Sanford, E

AU - Morcom, Andrea

AU - Horner, P

AU - Davey Smith, G

AU - Skidmore, Susan

AU - Herring, A

AU - Caul, O

AU - Hobbs, Frederick

AU - Egger, M

PY - 2005/4/23

Y1 - 2005/4/23

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20244385574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F

DO - 10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F

M3 - Article

VL - 330

SP - 940

EP - 943

JO - British Medical Journal

JF - British Medical Journal

SN - 0959-8138

ER -