Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Has Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in young women in England, Scotland and Wales changed? Evidence from national probability surveys

  • D. Z. Kounali (a1) (a2), N. J Welton (a1) (a2), K. Soldan (a2), S. C. Woodhall (a3), J. Kevin Dunbar (a3), S. J. Migchelsen (a3), C. H. Mercer (a4), P. Horner (a1) (a2) and A. E. Ades (a1) (a2)...

Abstract

We evaluate the utility of the National Surveys of Attitudes and Sexual Lifestyles (Natsal) undertaken in 2000 and 2010, before and after the introduction of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme, as an evidence source for estimating the change in prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) in England, Scotland and Wales. Both the 2000 and 2010 surveys tested urine samples for CT by Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs). We examined the sources of uncertainty in estimates of CT prevalence change, including sample size and adjustments for test sensitivity and specificity, survey non-response and informative non-response. In 2000, the unadjusted CT prevalence was 4.22% in women aged 18–24 years; in 2010, CT prevalence was 3.92%, a non-significant absolute difference of 0.30 percentage points (95% credible interval −2.8 to 2.0). In addition to uncertainty due to small sample size, estimates were sensitive to specificity, survey non-response or informative non-response, such that plausible changes in any one of these would be enough to either reverse or double any likely change in prevalence. Alternative ways of monitoring changes in CT incidence and prevalence over time are discussed.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Has Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in young women in England, Scotland and Wales changed? Evidence from national probability surveys
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Has Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in young women in England, Scotland and Wales changed? Evidence from national probability surveys
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Has Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in young women in England, Scotland and Wales changed? Evidence from national probability surveys
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: D. Z. Kounali, E-mail: daphne.kounali@bristol.ac.uk

References

Hide All
1.Price, MJ et al. (2016) The natural history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women: a multi parameter evidence synthesis. Health Technology Assesment 20, 1249.
2.van den Broek, IVF et al. (2012) Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation. British Medical Journal 345, e4316.
3.Low, N et al. (2009) Effectiveness of chlamydia screening: systematic review. International Journal of Epidemiology 38, 435448.
4. National Audit Office (2009) Young People's Sexual Health: The National Chlamydia Screening Programme. London: The Stationery Office.
5.Committee of Public Accounts (2010) Young people's sexual health: The National Chlamydia screening programme. Committee's 7th report, session 2009–10. London: The Stationery Office.
6.Department of Health. The future direction of the National Chlamydia screening programme 2011. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-future-direction-of-the-national-chlamydia-screening-programme.
7.Public Health England (2018) Sexually transmitted infections and screening for chlamydia in England, 2017. Health Protection Report 12, 126.
8.Sonnenberg, P et al. (2013) Prevalence, risk factors, and uptake of interventions for sexually transmitted infections in Britain: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). The Lancet 382, 17951806.
9.Erens, B et al. (2014) Methodology of the third British National Survey of Sexual attitudes and lifestyles (NATSAL-3). Sexually Transmitted Infections 90, 8489.
10.McCadden, A et al. (2005) Chlamydia trachomatis testing in the second British national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles: respondent uptake and treatment outcomes. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 32, 387394.
11.Woodhall, SC (2015) Has Opportunistic Screening Among Young Adults in England Led to a Reduction in Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection? Identifying and Appraising Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Chlamydia Control Programmes (Dissertation). University College London, London, UK.
12.Horner, P et al. (2013) C. trachomatis pgp3 antibody prevalence in young women in England, 1993–2010. PLoS ONE 8, e72001.
13.Mindell, J et al. (2012) Cohort profile: the health survey for England. International Journal of Epidemiology 41, 15851593.
14.Price, M et al. (2013) Mixture-of-exponentials models to explain heterogeneity in studies of the duration of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Statistics in Medicine 32, 15471560.
15.Ades, AE and Sutton, AJ (2006) Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision making: current appoaches. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (A) 169, 535.
16.Woodhall, SC et al. (2015) Is chlamydia screening and testing in Britain reaching young adults at risk of infection? Findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). Sexually Transmitted Infectections 92, 218227.
17.Rosenbaum, P and Rubin, DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 4145.
18.Low, N et al. (2007) Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydia infection. Health Technology Assessment 11.
19.Macleod, J et al. (2005) Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 330, 940942.
20.Gaydos, C et al. (2004) Comparison of three nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urine specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 42, 30413045.
21.Spiegelhalter, D et al. WinBUGS User Manual Version 1.4 January 2003. Upgraded to Version 1.4.32007. Available at https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/software/bugs/the-bugs-project-winbugs/.
22.Schachter, J et al. (1994) Ligase chain reaction to detect Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the cervix. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 32, 25402543.
23.Lee, HH et al. (1995) Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis genitourinary infection in women by ligase chain reaction assay of urine. The Lancet 345, 213216.
24.Chernesky, MA et al. (1994) Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis urethral infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic men by testing first-void urine in a ligase chain reaction assay. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 170, 13081311.
25.Hadgu, A (1996) The discrepancy in discrepant analysis. The Lancet 348, 592593.
26.Schachter, J et al. (2006) Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis by nucleic acid amplification testing: our evaluation suggests that CDC-recommended approaches for confirmatory testing are ill-advised. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 44, 25122517.
27.Alonzo, TA and Pepe, MS (1999) Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test. Statistics in Medicine 18, 29873003.
28.Black, CM et al. (2002) Head-to-head multicenter comparison of DNA probe and nucleic acid amplification tests for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women performed with an improved reference standard. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 40, 3757–3563.
29.Schiller, I et al. (2015) Bias due to composite reference standards in diagnostic accuracy studies. Statistics in Medicine 35, 14541470.
30.Mercer, CH et al. (2013) Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). The Lancet 382, 17811794.
31.Clifton, S et al. (2016) Patterns of chlamydia testing in different settings and implications for wider STI diagnosis and care: a probability sample survey of the British population. Sexually Transmitted Infections 93, 276283.
32.Chandra, NL et al. (2017) Filling in the gaps: estimating numbers of chlamydia tests and diagnoses by age group and sex before and during the implementation of the English National Screening Programme, 2000 to 2012. Euro Surveillance 22, 30453.
33.Turner, KME et al. (2013) Chlamydia screening, retesting and repeat diagnoses in Cornwall, UK 2003–2009. Sexually Transmitted Infections 89, 7075.
34.Little, RJA and Rubin, DB (2002) Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2 Edn. New Jersey: Wiley.
35.Winship, C and Mare, R (1992) Models for sample selection bias. Annual Review of Sociology 18, 3273550.
36.Lewis, J and White, PJ (2017) Estimating local Chlamydia incidence and prevalence using surveillance data. Epidemiology 28, 492502.
37.Lewis, J and White, PJ (2018) Changes in chlamydia prevalence and duration of infection estimated from testing and diagnosis rates in England: a model-based analysis using surveillance data, 2000–15. The Lancet Public Health 3, e271e278.
38.Soldan, K, Dunbar, JK and Goill, ON (2018) Estimating chlamydia prevalence: more difficult than modelling suggests. The Lancet Public Health 3, e416.
39.Lorimer, K, Reid, ME and Hart, GJ (2009) Willingness of young men and women to be tested for Chlamydia trachomatis in three non-medical settings in Glasgow, UK. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 35, 2126.
40.Spiegelhalter, DJ et al. (2014) The deviance information criterion: 12 years on. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B) 76, 485493.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Kounali et al. supplementary material
Kounali et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (31 KB)
31 KB

Has Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in young women in England, Scotland and Wales changed? Evidence from national probability surveys

  • D. Z. Kounali (a1) (a2), N. J Welton (a1) (a2), K. Soldan (a2), S. C. Woodhall (a3), J. Kevin Dunbar (a3), S. J. Migchelsen (a3), C. H. Mercer (a4), P. Horner (a1) (a2) and A. E. Ades (a1) (a2)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed