Skip to main content
PMC home page
Sexually Transmitted Infections logoLink to Sexually Transmitted Infections
. 2004 Oct;80(5):342–348. doi: 10.1136/sti.2003.006197

The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design

N Low 1, A McCarthy 1, J Macleod 1, C Salisbury 1, P Horner 1, T Roberts 1, R Campbell 1, A Herring 1, S Skidmore 1, E Sanford 1, J Sterne 1, S Davey 1, A Graham 1, M Huengsberg 1, J Ross 1, M Egger 1, t for 1
PMCID: PMC1744885  PMID: 15459400

Abstract

Background: Screening has been recommended to reduce the prevalence and morbidity associated with genital chlamydia infection in the United Kingdom.

Methods: We describe the rationale and study design of the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS), a collaborative project designed to evaluate screening outside genitourinary medicine clinics. A non-selective, active screening approach in 16–39 year olds randomly sampled from 27 general practice lists in the Bristol and Birmingham areas formed the basis of interlinked studies: a case-control study was used to investigate factors to improve the targeting of screening; participants with chlamydia were invited to enrol in a randomised controlled trial to evaluate partner notification conducted in primary care; and laboratory based studies were used to assess the best specimens and tests. We also explored psychosocial effects of screening and partner notification and modelled the cost effectiveness of the programme.

Conclusion: Results from four pilot practices show that mailing of specimens for chlamydia testing is feasible but that it is difficult to achieve high response rates with postal screening. The high prevalence of asymptomatic infection in men suggests that efforts to screen men for chlamydia should be strengthened.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (108.2 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. Duncan B., Hart G. Sexuality and health: the hidden costs of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis. BMJ. 1999 Apr 3;318(7188):931–933. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7188.931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Egger M., Low N., Smith G. D., Lindblom B., Herrmann B. Screening for chlamydial infections and the risk of ectopic pregnancy in a county in Sweden: ecological analysis. BMJ. 1998 Jun 13;316(7147):1776–1780. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7147.1776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Fenton K. A. Screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: have we fully explored the possibilities? Commun Dis Public Health. 2000 Jun;3(2):86–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Herrmann B., Egger M. Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in Uppsala County, Sweden, 1985-1993: declining rates for how much longer? Sex Transm Dis. 1995 Jul-Aug;22(4):253–260. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199507000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hillis S. D., Nakashima A., Amsterdam L., Pfister J., Vaughn M., Addiss D., Marchbanks P. A., Owens L. M., Davis J. P. The impact of a comprehensive chlamydia prevention program in Wisconsin. Fam Plann Perspect. 1995 May-Jun;27(3):108–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Kamwendo F., Forslin L., Bodin L., Danielsson D. Programmes to reduce pelvic inflammatory disease--the Swedish experience. Lancet. 1998;351 (Suppl 3):25–28. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)90008-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kretzschmar M., van Duynhoven Y. T., Severijnen A. J. Modeling prevention strategies for gonorrhea and Chlamydia using stochastic network simulations. Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Aug 1;144(3):306–317. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008926. [DOI] [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. Mathews C., Coetzee N., Zwarenstein M., Lombard C., Guttmacher S., Oxman A., Schmid G. Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD002843–CD002843. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ostergaard L., Andersen B., Møller J. K., Olesen F. Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study. Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Oct 25;31(4):951–957. doi: 10.1086/318139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Pimenta J. M., Catchpole M., Rogers P. A., Hopwood J., Randall S., Mallinson H., Perkins E., Jackson N., Carlisle C., Hewitt G. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):22–27. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.1.22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Scholes D., Stergachis A., Heidrich F. E., Andrilla H., Holmes K. K., Stamm W. E. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med. 1996 May 23;334(21):1362–1366. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199605233342103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Zigmond A. S., Snaith R. P. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. van den Hoek J. A., Mulder-Folkerts D. K., Coutinho R. A., Dukers N. H., Buimer M., van Doornum G. J. Opportunistische screening op genitale infecties met Chlamydia trachomatis onder de seksueel actieve bevolking in Amsterdam. I. Meer dan 90% deelname en bijna 5% prevalentie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1999 Mar 27;143(13):668–672. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES