Screening university students for genital chlamydial infection: another lesson to learn
Taha Aldeen A B D , Jacky Jacobs C and Roy Powell AA Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Healthcare, Barrack Road, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK.
B Present address: Epithelial Sciences Group, Manchester University, Irving Building, Salford, Stott Lane, Manchester M6 8AW, UK.
C Student Health Centre, Exeter University, Exeter EX4 4QP, Devon, UK.
D Corresponding author. Email: t.aldeen@yahoo.com
Sexual Health 7(4) 491-494 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH08094
Submitted: 15 December 2008 Accepted: 25 May 2010 Published: 10 November 2010
Abstract
Background: Genital chlamydial infection is the most common bacterial sexually transmissible infection in Britain. However, the magnitude of the problem at a university setting has not been sufficiently explored. The objective of the present study was to assess the acceptability and the feasibility of Chlamydia trachomatis opportunistic screening at the University of Exeter, England, UK. Methods: A cross-sectional study at the University of Exeter was performed. Study posters were placed in the campuses inviting the students to participate in the study. C. trachomatis screening flyers were offered to consecutive male and female students visiting the university health centre. Participants were given an information sheet and asked to complete a demographic and sexual health questionnaire. Following informed consent, a first void urine specimen was collected from male participants and a self-administered vaginal swab was collected from female participants. Specimens were tested for C. trachomatis using nucleic acid amplification test. Results: Of the 250 students offered chlamydia study slips in the university health centre, 88 (35.2%) agreed to participate in the screening. Six of them were ineligible for the study. A further nine students volunteered to participate in the screening through reading study posters in the university campuses, and three of them were ineligible. A total of 88 students (66 female and 22 male) were screened for C. trachomatis and three of them (3.41%; 95% confidence interval 0.71%–9.64%) tested positive. All of the positive participants were offered treatment and partner notification. The majority of the screened students (96.5%) had had at least one sexual partner in the past 3 months. Conclusion: Opportunistic screening for C. trachomatis in the university can identify and treat infected students. However, the uptake rate was low. More efforts are needed to determine the best ways of engaging students in the screening.
Additional keywords: Chlamydia trachomatis, UK.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the staff in the University Health Centre of University of Exter for their support, and we thank the Research Department at the Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation NHS Trust for the financial assistance towards administrative costs of the study. We also thank the Microbiology Department in Cornwall Hospital for processing study specimens.
[1]
[2]
[3] McNulty CA, Freeman E, Howell-Jones R, Hogan A, Randall S, Ford-Young W, et al. Overcoming the barriers to chlamydia screening in general practice – a qualitative study. Fam Pract 2010; 27 291–302.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[4] Fenton KA, Ward H. National chlamydia screening programme in England: making progress. Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80 331–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
[5] 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 | CAS | PubMed |
[6] Rogstad KE, Bates SM, Partridge S, Kudesia G, Poll R, Osborne MA, et al. The prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in male undergraduates: a postal survey. Sex Transm Infect 2002; 77 111–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Chaudhary R, Heffernan CM, Illsley AL, Jarvie LK, Lattimer C, Nwuba AE, et al. Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia: a pilot study into male perspectives on provision of Chlamydia screening in a UK university. J Public Health. 2008; 30 466–71.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Ivaz S, Brennan S, Dean S, Hay S, Hay P, Kerry S, et al. Lessons learned from recruiting young female students to a randomised controlled trial of chlamydia screening. Fam Pract 2006; 23 188–91.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[9] Atherton H, Banks D, Harbit R, Long L, Chadd F, Hay P, et al. Recruitment of young women to a trial of Chlamydia screening – as easy as it sounds? Trials 2007; 8 41.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[10] Gift TL, Blake DR, Gaydos CA, Marrazzo JM. The cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of the literature. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35(Suppl): S51–60.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[11] Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts TE, et al. Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11 1–165.
[12] Simms I, Horner PJ. Has the incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease following chlamydia infection been overestimated? Int J STD AIDS 2008; 19 285–6.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
[13] Zenilman JM, Shahmanesh M, Winter AJ. Ethnicity and STIs: more than black and white. Sex Transm Infect 2001; 77 2–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
[14] Mills N, Daker-White G, Graham A, Campbell R; For The Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Group. Population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the UK: a qualitative study of the experiences of those screened. Fam Pract 2006; 23 550–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
