32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementing chlamydia screening: what do women think? A systematic review of the literature

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Chlamydia trachomatis is a common sexually transmitted infection that can have serious consequences. It is universally agreed that screening for chlamydia infection should be offered to sexually active young women. We undertook a literature review to document the views, attitudes and opinions of women about being screened, tested and diagnosed with Chlamydia trachomatis.

          Methods

          Online databases (MEDLINE, Meditext, PsycINFO, Web of Science) and reference lists searched up to August 2005. Search terms: chlamydia, attitude, attitude to health, interview, qualitative, women. Eligibility criteria: about chlamydia, included women, involved interviews/surveys/focus groups, looked at women's views/opinions/attitudes, published in English. Thematic analysis identified the main and recurrent themes emerging from the literature. We compared our thematic analysis with the Theory of Planned Behaviour to provide a model that could assist in planning chlamydia screening programs.

          Results

          From 561 identified articles, 25 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were reviewed. 22: USA, UK; 3: Holland, Sweden, Australia. Major themes identified: need for knowledge and information, choice and support; concerns about confidentiality, cost, fear, anxiety and stigma. Women are more likely to find chlamydia screening/testing acceptable if they think chlamydia is a serious, common condition which can cause infertility and if they understand that chlamydia infection can be asymptomatic. Women want a range of options for chlamydia testing including urine tests, self-administered swabs, pelvic exams and clinician-collected swabs, home-testing and community-based testing. Tests should be free, easy and quick. Women want support for dealing with the implications of a chlamydia diagnosis, they feel chlamydia diagnoses need to be normalised and destigmatised and they want assistance with partner notification. Women need to know that their confidentiality will be maintained.

          Conclusion

          Our review found that women from various countries and ethnic backgrounds share similar views regarding chlamydia screening, testing and diagnosis. The acknowledged importance of women's views in planning an effective chlamydia screening program is expanded in this review which details the nature and complexity of such views and considers their likely impact.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical practice. Genital chlamydial infections.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            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. 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. 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. 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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Azithromycin versus doxycycline for genital chlamydial infections: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

              Azithromycin and doxycycline are recommended for treatment of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. A systematic review comparing these antibiotics could affect treatment guidelines. The goal was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of azithromycin versus doxycycline for genital chlamydial infection. Studies were identified by searching computerized English-language databases for the period 1975 to August 2001, supplemented by a manual bibliographic search. Criteria for inclusion were (1) randomized trial design; (2) regimens of oral doxycycline (100 mg twice daily for 7 days) and oral azithromycin (1 g once); (3) males >15 years of age and nonpregnant females >15 years of age; (4) and evaluation of microbial cure at follow-up. Data were extracted on diagnostic assay, follow-up time, study design, sponsorship, patients' characteristics, adverse events, attrition rates, and outcomes. Twelve trials met the inclusion criteria; 1543 patients were evaluated for microbial cure and 2171 for adverse events. Cure rates were 97% for azithromycin and 98% for doxycycline. Adverse events occurred in 25% and 23% of patients treated with azithromycin and doxycycline, respectively. After pooling of the data, differences in efficacy and risk were computed. The efficacy difference for microbial cure (0.01; 95% CI, -0.01-0.02) and the risk difference for adverse events (0.01; 95% CI, -0.02-0.04) between the two drugs were not statistically significant. Azithromycin and doxycycline are equally efficacious in achieving microbial cure and have similar tolerability. Further head-to-head trials comparing these antibiotics are unnecessary.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                2006
                1 September 2006
                : 6
                : 221
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Practice, Melbourne University, 200 Berkeley St, Carlton, Melbourne, Australia
                [2 ]School of Population Health, Melbourne University, Carlton, Melbourne, Australia
                [3 ]Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC), 580 Swanston St, Carlton, Melbourne, Australia
                [4 ]Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Research, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia
                Article
                1471-2458-6-221
                10.1186/1471-2458-6-221
                1569845
                16948838
                6cd9341f-59af-4624-8093-7ace3f6b8684
                Copyright © 2006 Pavlin et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 May 2006
                : 1 September 2006
                Categories
                Research Article

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article