Skip to main content
PMC home page
Sexually Transmitted Infections logoLink to Sexually Transmitted Infections
. 2003 Feb;79(1):16–21. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.1.16

Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: Acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings

J Pimenta 1, M Catchpole 1, P Rogers 1, E Perkins 1, N Jackson 1, C Carlisle 1, S Randall 1, J Hopwood 1, G Hewitt 1, G Underhill 1, H Mallinson 1, L McLean 1, T Gleave 1, J Tobin 1, V Harindra 1, A Ghosh 1
PMCID: PMC1744586  PMID: 12576607

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the acceptability of opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in young people in a range of healthcare settings.

Design: An opportunistic screening programme (1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000) using urine samples tested by ligase chain reaction (LCR). Data on uptake and testing were collected and in-depth interviews were used for programme evaluation.

Setting: General practice, family planning, genitourinary medicine clinics, adolescent sexual health clinics, termination of pregnancy clinics, and women's services in hospitals (antenatal, colposcopy, gynaecology and infertility clinics) in two health authorities (Wirral and Portsmouth and South East Hampshire).

Main participants: Sexually active women aged between 16 and 24 years attending healthcare settings for any reason.

Main outcome measures: Uptake data: proportion of women accepting a test by area, healthcare setting, and age; overall population coverage achieved in 1 year. Evaluation data: participants' attitudes and views towards opportunistic screening and urine testing.

Results: Acceptance of testing by women (16–24 years) was 76% in Portsmouth and 84% in Wirral. Acceptance was lower in younger women (Portsmouth only) and varied by healthcare setting within each site. 50% of the target female population were screened in Portsmouth and 39% in Wirral. Both the opportunistic offer of screening and the method of screening were universally acceptable. Major factors influencing a decision to accept screening were the non-invasive nature of testing and treatment, desire to protect future fertility, and the experimental nature of the screening programme.

Conclusions: An opportunistic model of urine screening for chlamydial infection is a practical, universally acceptable method of screening.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (119.7 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Addiss D. G., Vaughn M. L., Ludka D., Pfister J., Davis J. P. Decreased prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection associated with a selective screening program in family planning clinics in Wisconsin. Sex Transm Dis. 1993 Jan-Feb;20(1):28–35. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199301000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Carder C., Robinson A. J., Broughton C., Stephenson J. M., Ridgway G. L. Evaluation of self-taken samples for the presence of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women using the ligase chain reaction assay. Int J STD AIDS. 1999 Dec;10(12):776–779. doi: 10.1258/0956462991913538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Herrmann B. F., Johansson A. B., Mårdh P. A. A retrospective study of efforts to diagnose infections by Chlamydia trachomatis in a Swedish county. Sex Transm Dis. 1991 Oct-Dec;18(4):233–237. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199110000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hicks N. R., Dawes M., Fleminger M., Goldman D., Hamling J., Hicks L. J. Evidence based case report: chlamydia infection in general practice. BMJ. 1999 Mar 20;318(7186):790–792. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7186.790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Johnson A. M., Mercer C. H., Erens B., Copas A. J., McManus S., Wellings K., Fenton K. A., Korovessis C., Macdowall W., Nanchahal K. Sexual behaviour in Britain: partnerships, practices, and HIV risk behaviours. Lancet. 2001 Dec 1;358(9296):1835–1842. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06883-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Oakeshott P. Screening for cervical chlamydial infection in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Nov;49(448):923–924. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. van Valkengoed I. G., Morré S. A., van den Brule A. J., Meijer C. J., Devillé W., Bouter L. M., Boeke A. J. Low diagnostic accuracy of selective screening criteria for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections in the general population. Sex Transm Infect. 2000 Oct;76(5):375–380. doi: 10.1136/sti.76.5.375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES