A chlamydia prevalence survey of young women living in Melbourne, Victoria
Jane S. Hocking A B F , Jessika Willis B , Sepehr Tabrizi C , Christopher K. Fairley A D , Suzanne M. Garland C E and Margaret Hellard BA School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
B Centre for Population Health Research, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, PO Box 2284, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia.
C Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Royal Women’s Hospital, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia.
D Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, 580 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia.
E Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
F Corresponding author. Email: jhocking@unimelb.edu.au
Sexual Health 3(4) 235-240 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH06033
Submitted: 18 May 2006 Accepted: 19 October 2006 Published: 17 November 2006
Abstract
Background: To estimate the population-based chlamydia prevalence among women aged 18 to 35 years living in Melbourne, Victoria, and to assess the feasibility of using mailed urine specimens to test women. Methods: A simple random sample of 11 001 households in Melbourne was selected from the telephone directory. Participants completed telephone interviews and provided urine specimens through the mail for chlamydia testing. Urines were tested using polymerase chain reaction. Results: 11 001 households were contacted, with 1532 households identified as including eligible women; telephone interviews were completed, with 979 women giving a response rate of 64%. Six hundred and fifty-seven women provided a urine specimen with a response rate of 43%. Among sexually active women aged 18–24 years, the chlamydia prevalence was 3.7% (95% CI: 1.2%, 8.4%) and 0.2% (95% CI: 0.0%, 1.1%) among 25–35 year olds. Chlamydia prevalence increased significantly with an increasing number of male sexual partners. Conclusions: This is the first study of its kind in Australia and shows that chlamydia prevalence increases with an increasing number of male sexual partners in the last 12 months. Mailed urine specimens are feasible for conducting population-based chlamydia-prevalence surveys but it is difficult to obtain high response rates with this methodology. Public health resources should now be directed towards investigating how to reach young women at increased risk of infection, ensuring that they are tested for chlamydia.
Additional keywords: mailed specimen, population-based.
Acknowledgements
Jane Hocking and this study were supported by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). We wish to particularly acknowledge the contribution of the study interviewers, Jennie Pfeiffer and Anne Browning. We are grateful for the efforts of Dr Shujun Chen and Elice Rudland from the Molecular Microbiology Department at the Royal Women’s Hospital who conducted the chlamydia testing in this study. Thanks are also due to Megan Lim for administrative support during the study. Dr Tim Read from the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre and the Burnet Institute generously provided his time to counsel study participants where necessary. A final thank you to the women who participated in this study.
[1]
[2] Peipert JF. Genital chlamydial infections. N Engl J Med 2003; 349 2424–30.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[3] Hocking J, Tabrizi SN, Jolley D, Garland SM, Fairley CK. Improving response rates for self collected urine samples. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79 346–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[4] Wilson DH, Starr GJ, Taylor AW, Grande ED. Random digit dialling and electronic white pages samples compared: demographic profiles and health estimates. Aust NZ J Public Health 1999; 23 627–33.
| PubMed |
[5] Tabrizi SN, Fairley CK, Cehn S, Giouzeppos O, Paterson B, Bowden FJ, Garland SM. Evaluation of patient-administered tampon specimens for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoea. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27 133–7.
| PubMed |
[6]
[7]
[8] Smith AM, Rissel CE, Richters J, Grulich AE, de Visser RO. Sex in Australia: the rationale and methods of the Australian Study of Health and Relationships. Aust NZ J Public Health 2003; 27 106–17.
| PubMed |
[9]
[10] Leigh BC, Temple MT, Trocki KF. The sexual behaviour of US adults: results from a national survey. Am J Public Health 1993; 83 1400–8.
| PubMed |
[11] Dunne MP, Martin NG, Bailey JM, Heath AC, Bucholz KK, Madden PA, Statham DJ. Participation bias in a sexuality survey: psychological and behavioural characteristics of responders and non-responders. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26 844–54.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[12] Traeen B, Stigum H, Sorensen D. Sexual diversity in urban Norwegians. J Sex Res 2002; 39 249–59.
| PubMed |
[13] van Bergen J, Gotz HM, Richardus JH, Hoebe CJ, Broer J, Coenen AJ, et al. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81 17–23.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[14] van Valkengoed IG, Morre SA, van den Brule AJ, Meijer CJ, Deville , W , Bouter , LM , et al. Low diagnostic accuracy of selective screening criteria for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections in the general population. Sex Transm Infect 2000; 76 375–80.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[15] Fenton KA, Korovessis C, Johnson AM, McCadden A, McManus S, Wellings K, et al. Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalence genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Lancet 2001; 358 1851–4.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[16] Miller WC, Ford CA, Morris M, Handcock MS, Schmitz JL, Hobbs MM, et al. Prevalence of chlamydial and gonococcal infections among young adults in the United States. JAMA 2004; 291 2229–36.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[17] Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK, Ostergaard L. Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomised, controlled trial. J Infect Dis 2002; 185 252–8.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[18] Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, McCarthy A, Sterne JA, Holloway A, et al. Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom: cross-sectional study. BMJ 2005; 330 940–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[19] Heal C, Jones B, Veitch C, Lamb S, Hodgens S, Browning S, et al. Screening for chlamydia in general practice. Aust Fam Physician 2002; 31 779–82.
| PubMed |
[20] Williams H, Tabrizi SN, Lee W, Kovacs GT, Garland S. Adolescence and other risk factors for Chlamydia trachomatis genitourinary infection in women in Melbourne, Australia. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79 31–4.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[21] Jones S, Barker S, Athan E, Graves S. The tip of the iceberg: opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic patients attending a young people’s health clinic reveals a high prevalence – a pilot study. Sex Health 2004; 1 115–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[22] Adams EJ, Charlett A, Edmunds WJ, Hughes G. Chlamydia trachomatis in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and analysis of prevalence studies. Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80 354–62.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
