Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 2005 Mar;59(3):198–204. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.021584

Can we evaluate population screening strategies in UK general practice? A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection

A Senok 1, P Wilson 1, M Reid 1, A Scoular 1, N Craig 1, A McConnachie 1, B Fitzpatrick 1, A MacDonald 1
PMCID: PMC1733025  PMID: 15709078

Abstract

Study objective: To assess whether opportunistic and postal screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis can be compared with usual care in a randomised trial in general practice.

Design: Feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Three West of Scotland general medical practices: one rural, one urban/deprived, and one urban/affluent.

Participants: 600 women aged 16–30 years, 200 from each of three participating practices selected at random from a sample of West of Scotland practices that had expressed interest in the study. The women could opt out of the study. Those who did not were randomly assigned to one of three groups: postal screening, opportunistic screening, or usual care.

Results: 38% (85 of 221) of the approached practices expressed interest in the study. Data were collected successfully from the three participating practices. There were considerable workload implications for staff. Altogether 124 of the 600 women opted out of the study. During the four month study period, 55% (81 of 146) of the control group attended their practice but none was offered screening. Some 59% (80 of 136) women in the opportunistic group attended their practice of whom 55% (44 of 80) were offered screening. Of those, 64% (28 of 44) accepted, representing 21% of the opportunistic group. Forty eight per cent (59 of 124) of the postal group returned samples.

Conclusion: A randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for chlamydial infection in general practice is feasible, although resource intensive. There may be problems with generalising from screening trials in which patients may opt out from the offer of screening.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (86.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Andersen Berit, Olesen Frede, Møller Jens K., Østergaard Lars. Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomized, controlled trial. J Infect Dis. 2002 Jan 3;185(2):252–258. doi: 10.1086/338268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Armstrong B., Kinn S., Scoular A., Wilson P. Shared care in the management of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in primary care. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Oct;79(5):369–370. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.5.369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Black C. M. Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997 Jan;10(1):160–184. doi: 10.1128/cmr.10.1.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell M., Grimshaw J., Steen N. Sample size calculations for cluster randomised trials. Changing Professional Practice in Europe Group (EU BIOMED II Concerted Action). J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Jan;5(1):12–16. doi: 10.1177/135581960000500105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cassell J., Young A. Why we should not seek individual informed consent for participation in health services research. J Med Ethics. 2002 Oct;28(5):313–317. doi: 10.1136/jme.28.5.313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cates W., Jr, Wasserheit J. N. Genital chlamydial infections: epidemiology and reproductive sequelae. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Jun;164(6 Pt 2):1771–1781. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(91)90559-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chernesky M. A., Jang D., Lee H., Burczak J. D., Hu H., Sellors J., Tomazic-Allen S. J., Mahony J. B. Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections in men and women by testing first-void urine by ligase chain reaction. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Nov;32(11):2682–2685. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.11.2682-2685.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fenton K. A., Korovessis C., Johnson A. M., McCadden A., McManus S., Wellings K., Mercer C. H., Carder C., Copas A. J., Nanchahal K. Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Lancet. 2001 Dec 1;358(9296):1851–1854. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06886-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hearnshaw Hilary. Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):140–141. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kinn S., Macnaughton J., Noone A., Scoular A. Chlamydia trachomatis in primary care: knowledge and practice in Glasgow. Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Mar;50(452):214–215. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Low Nicola, Egger Matthias. What should we do about screening for genital chlamydia? Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Oct;31(5):891–893. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.5.891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Macleod J., Rowsell R., Horner P., Crowley T., Caul E. O., Low N., Smith G. D. Postal urine specimens: are they a feasible method for genital chlamydial infection screening? Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Jun;49(443):455–458. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ostergaard L., Andersen B., Olesen F., Moller J. K. Efficacy of home sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis: randomised study. BMJ. 1998 Jul 4;317(7150):26–27. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7150.26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Paavonen J., Puolakkainen M., Paukku M., Sintonen H. Cost-benefit analysis of first-void urine Chlamydia trachomatis screening program. Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Aug;92(2):292–298. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00167-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pimenta J. M., Catchpole M., Rogers P. A., Perkins E., Jackson N., Carlisle C., Randall S., Hopwood J., Hewitt G., Underhill G. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):16–21. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.1.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Santer M., Warner P., Wyke S., Sutherland S. Opportunistic screening for chlamydia infection in general practice: can we reach young women? J Med Screen. 2000;7(4):175–176. doi: 10.1136/jms.7.4.175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Stephenson J., Carder C., Copas A., Robinson A., Ridgway G., Haines A. Home screening for chlamydial genital infection: is it acceptable to young men and women? Sex Transm Infect. 2000 Feb;76(1):25–27. doi: 10.1136/sti.76.1.25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Tobin C., Aggarwal R., Clarke J., Chown R., King D. Chlamydia trachomatis: opportunistic screening in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Jul;51(468):565–566. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. van Valkengoed I. G., Boeke A. J., van den Brule A. J., Morré S. A., Dekker J. H., Meijer C. J., van Eijk J. T. Systematische opsporing van infecties met Chlamydia trachomatis bij mannen en vrouwen zonder klachten in de huisartspraktijk met behulp van per post verstuurde urinemonsters. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1999 Mar 27;143(13):672–676. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. van Valkengoed I. G., Postma M. J., Morré S. A., van den Brule A. J., Meijer C. J., Bouter L. M., Boeke A. J. Cost effectiveness analysis of a population based screening programme for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections in women by means of home obtained urine specimens. Sex Transm Infect. 2001 Aug;77(4):276–282. doi: 10.1136/sti.77.4.276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES