Skip to main content
PMC home page
Sexually Transmitted Infections logoLink to Sexually Transmitted Infections
. 2001 Apr;77(2):111–113. doi: 10.1136/sti.77.2.111

The prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in male undergraduates: a postal survey

K Rogstad 1, S Bates 1, S Partridge 1, G Kudesia 1, R Poll 1, M Osborne 1, S Dixon 1
PMCID: PMC1744289  PMID: 11287689

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in male undergraduates and to investigate whether prevalence increases with time spent at university. To investigate the feasibility of screening men for C trachomatis by self sampling and posting of urine specimens.

Methods: The study design was a postal survey undertaken by the Department of Genito-Urinary Medicine (GUM) and Student University Health Service (SUHS) in Sheffield. 2607 male undergraduates from the SUHS patient list were invited to participate in the study by providing a first void urine specimen and posting it to the laboratory. The main outcome measure was the detection of C trachomatis infection.

Results: 758 students participated in the study, a response rate of 29.1%. Nine students (1.2%) tested positive for C trachomatis. The prevalence of infection in the first, second, and third year of study was 0.7%, 1.5%, and 1.6% of participants respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in prevalence of infection between first and third year students (χ2 test, p = 0.32). However, students with chlamydia had a higher median age (Mann-Whitney U test, p=<0.05). Contact tracing identified four further cases of C trachomatis infection.

Conclusion: Screening for C trachomatis infection by postal survey is feasible. However, the response rate in this study was poor and the estimated sample size was not reached. Therefore, it has not been possible to determine the true prevalence of infection in this population or to accurately assess changes in prevalence with time spent at university.

Key Words: screening; ligase chain reaction; Chlamydia trachomatis; postal survey

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (93.5 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bates S. M., Rogstad K. E. Postal research: too many problems? Sex Transm Infect. 2000 Oct;76(5):332–334. doi: 10.1136/sti.76.5.332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowling A., Jacobson B. Screening: the inadequacy of population registers. BMJ. 1989 Mar 4;298(6673):545–546. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6673.545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Genç M., Mårdh A. A cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in asymptomatic women. Ann Intern Med. 1996 Jan 1;124(1 Pt 1):1–7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_part_1-199601010-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Howell M. R., Kassler W. J., Haddix A. Partner notification to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease in women. Cost-effectiveness of two strategies. Sex Transm Dis. 1997 May;24(5):287–292. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199705000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kacena K. A., Quinn S. B., Howell M. R., Madico G. E., Quinn T. C., Gaydos C. A. Pooling urine samples for ligase chain reaction screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in asymptomatic women. J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Feb;36(2):481–485. doi: 10.1128/jcm.36.2.481-485.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Notomi T., Ikeda Y., Okadome A., Nagayama A. The inhibitory effect of phosphate on the ligase chain reaction used for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis. J Clin Pathol. 1998 Apr;51(4):306–308. doi: 10.1136/jcp.51.4.306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ostergaard L., Møller J. K., Andersen B., Olesen F. Diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women based on mailed samples obtained at home: multipractice comparative study. BMJ. 1996 Nov 9;313(7066):1186–1189. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Podgore J. K., Holmes K. K., Alexander E. R. Asymptomatic urethral infections due to Chlamydia trachomatis in male U.S. military personnel. J Infect Dis. 1982 Dec;146(6):828–828. doi: 10.1093/infdis/146.6.828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shafer M. A., Schachter J., Moncada J., Keogh J., Pantell R., Gourlay L., Eyre S., Boyer C. B. Evaluation of urine-based screening strategies to detect Chlamydia trachomatis among sexually active asymptomatic young males. JAMA. 1993 Nov 3;270(17):2065–2070. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stary A., Tomazic-Allen S., Choueiri B., Burczak J., Steyrer K., Lee H. Comparison of DNA amplification methods for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in first-void urine from asymptomatic military recruits. Sex Transm Dis. 1996 Mar-Apr;23(2):97–102. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199603000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Sexually Transmitted Infections are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES