Opportunistic and systematic screening for chlamydia: a study of consultations by young adults in general practice.

BACKGROUND Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydia infection is being introduced in England, but evidence for the effectiveness of this approach is lacking. There are insufficient data about young peoples' use of primary care services to determine the potential coverage of opportunistic screening in comparison with a systematic population-based approach. AIM To estimate use of primary care services by young men and women; to compare potential coverage of opportunistic chlamydia screening with a systematic postal approach. DESIGN OF STUDY Population based cross-sectional study. SETTING Twenty-seven general practices around Bristol and Birmingham. METHOD A random sample of patients aged 16-24 years were posted a chlamydia screening pack. We collected details of face-to-face consultations from general practice records. Survival and person-time methods were used to estimate the cumulative probability of attending general practice in 1 year and the coverage achieved by opportunistic and systematic postal chlamydia screening. RESULTS Of 12 973 eligible patients, an estimated 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 58.3 to 62.5%) of men and 75.3% (73.7 to 76.9%) of women aged 16-24 years attended their practice at least once in a 1-year period. During this period, an estimated 21.3% of patients would not attend their general practice but would be reached by postal screening, 9.2% would not receive a postal invitation but would attend their practice, and 11.8% would be missed by both methods. CONCLUSIONS Opportunistic and population-based approaches to chlamydia screening would both fail to contact a substantial minority of the target group, if used alone. A pragmatic approach combining both strategies might achieve higher coverage.

[1]  K. Fenton,et al.  Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening , 2004, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[2]  J. Sterne,et al.  The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design , 2004, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[3]  C. Mcnulty,et al.  Barriers to opportunistic chlamydia testing in primary care. , 2004, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[4]  C. Carlisle,et al.  Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: Prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases , 2003, Sexually transmitted infections.

[5]  C. Carlisle,et al.  Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: Acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings , 2003, Sexually transmitted infections.

[6]  N. Low,et al.  What should we do about screening for genital chlamydia? , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[7]  K. Moser,et al.  Consultation rates from the general practice research database. , 2002, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[8]  F. Olesen,et al.  Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomized, controlled trial. , 2002, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[9]  Anne M Johnson,et al.  Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection , 2001, The Lancet.

[10]  A. Furber Chlamydia trachomatis: opportunistic screening in primary care. , 2001, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[11]  A. Wikström,et al.  [A questionnaire study in the county of Stockholm on transmission control of chlamydia infections. Too many physicians neglect the contact tracing]. , 2000, Läkartidningen.

[12]  K. Fenton Screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: have we fully explored the possibilities? , 2000, Communicable disease and public health.

[13]  N. Low,et al.  Postal urine specimens: are they a feasible method for genital chlamydial infection screening? , 1999, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[14]  G. Hart,et al.  Sexuality and health: the hidden costs of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis , 1999, BMJ.

[15]  G. Ridgway,et al.  Comparison of two methods of screening for genital chlamydial infection in women attending in general practice: cross sectional survey , 1997, BMJ.

[16]  M. Falshaw,et al.  Audit of preventive activities in 16 inner London practices using a validated measure of patient population, the 'active patient' denominator. Healthy Eastenders Project. , 1995, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[17]  A. Coulter,et al.  Screening: the inadequacy of population registers. , 1989, BMJ.

[18]  W P LOGAN,et al.  Morbidity statistics from general practice. , 1954, The Practitioner.