Literature DB >> 15459399

Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening.

D S LaMontagne1, K A Fenton, S Randall, S Anderson, P Carter.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The phased implementation of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) began in September 2002. The NCSP offers opportunistic screening for chlamydia to women and men under 25 years of age attending clinical and non-clinical screening venues using non-invasive urine or vulvo-vaginal swab samples tested via nucleic acid amplification. This review describes the implementation of the NCSP, reports positivity rates for the first year, and explores risk factors for genital chlamydial infection.
METHODS: Cross sectional study of the first year's screening data from the NCSP. A standardised core dataset for each screening test was collected from 302 screening venues, excluding genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics, across 10 phase 1 programme areas. We estimated chlamydia positivity by demographic and behavioural characteristics, and investigated factors associated with infection through univariate and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: Chlamydia positivity among people under 25 years of age screened in non-GUM settings was 10.1% (1538/15 241) in women and 13.3% (156/1172) in men. Risk factors varied by sex: for women-age 16-19, non-white ethnicity, and sexual behaviours were associated with infection; for men-only age 20-24 and non-white ethnicity were associated with infection. DISCUSSION: In the first phase of the NCSP, 16 413 opportunistic screens among young adults under 25 years of age were performed at non-GUM settings and testing volume increased over time. Rates of disease were similar to those found during the English screening pilot and were comparable to the first year of widespread screening in Sweden and the United States. The screening programme in England will continue to expand as further phases are included, with national coverage anticipated by 2008.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15459399      PMCID: PMC1744892          DOI: 10.1136/sti.2004.012856

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sex Transm Infect        ISSN: 1368-4973            Impact factor:   3.519


  23 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based dynamic approach.

Authors:  R Welte; M Kretzschmar; R Leidl; A van den Hoek; J C Jager; M J Postma
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.830

Review 2.  Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies.

Authors:  E Honey; C Augood; A Templeton; I Russell; J Paavonen; P-A Mårdh; A Stary; B Stray-Pedersen
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.519

3.  STDs and family planning clinics: a regional program for Chlamydia control that works.

Authors:  T F Britton; S Delisle; D Fine
Journal:  Am J Gynecol Health       Date:  1992 May-Jun

4.  Comparative model-based analysis of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis infections.

Authors:  M Kretzschmar; R Welte; A van den Hoek; M J Postma
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection.

Authors:  K A Fenton; C Korovessis; A M Johnson; A McCadden; S McManus; K Wellings; C H Mercer; C Carder; A J Copas; K Nanchahal; W Macdowall; G Ridgway; J Field; B Erens
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study.

Authors:  L Ostergaard; B Andersen; J K Møller; F Olesen
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2000-10-25       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases.

Authors:  J M Pimenta; M Catchpole; P A Rogers; J Hopwood; S Randall; H Mallinson; E Perkins; N Jackson; C Carlisle; G Hewitt; G Underhill; T Gleave; L McLean; A Ghosh; J Tobin; V Harindra
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.519

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

Authors:  J M Pimenta; M Catchpole; P A Rogers; E Perkins; N Jackson; C Carlisle; S Randall; J Hopwood; G Hewitt; G Underhill; H Mallinson; L McLean; T Gleave; J Tobin; V Harindra; A Ghosh
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.519

Review 9.  A systematic review of the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis among European women.

Authors:  J S Wilson; E Honey; A Templeton; J Paavonen; P A Mårdh; B Stray-Pedersen
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 15.610

10.  Demonstration of Chlamydia trachomatis IgG antibodies in the male partner of the infertile couple is correlated with a reduced likelihood of achieving pregnancy.

Authors:  A Idahl; J Boman; U Kumlin; J I Olofsson
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 6.918

View more
  50 in total

1.  With appropriate incentives, general practice can improve the coverage of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme.

Authors:  Richard Ma
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Evaluating novel interventions for chlamydia screening.

Authors:  N Low
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.519

3.  Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies project.

Authors:  Suzanne Robinson; Tracy Roberts; Pelham Barton; Stirling Bryan; John Macleod; Anne McCarthy; Matthias Egger; Emma Sanford; Nicola Low
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 3.519

4.  Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  Rachael Jones; Fiona Boag
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-04-07

5.  Vouchers versus Lotteries: What works best in promoting Chlamydia screening? A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Claudia Niza; Caroline Rudisill; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Appl Econ Perspect Policy       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 4.083

6.  Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study.

Authors:  D P Novak; R B Karlsson
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.519

7.  Impact of Chlamydia trachomatis and HPV infection among sexually active teenage girls in Upper Silesia, Poland.

Authors:  Daniela Friedek; Alicja Ekiel; Malgorzata Romanik; Zbigniew Chelmicki; Artur Chelmicki; Gayane Martirosian
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.153

8.  The cost effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia screening in England.

Authors:  Elisabeth J Adams; Katherine M E Turner; W John Edmunds
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.519

9.  Comparing urine samples and cervical swabs for Chlamydia testing in a female population by means of Strand Displacement Assay (SDA).

Authors:  Siren Haugland; Turid Thune; Beata Fosse; Tore Wentzel-Larsen; Stig Ove Hjelmevoll; Helge Myrmel
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 2.809

10.  A study of young peoples' attitudes to opportunistic Chlamydia testing in UK general practice.

Authors:  Joanne Heritage; Melvyn Jones
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2008-12-19       Impact factor: 3.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.