Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in men attending three different secondary healthcare settings
- S Sripada,
- S Logan,
- S McGillivray,
- H Mckenzie,
- A Templeton,
- M Hamilton,
- A Sutherland,
- S Bhattacharya
- Correspondence to: Dr S Sripada Assisted Reproduction Unit, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK; ogy302{at}abdn.ac.uk
- Accepted 5 February 2007
- Published Online First 21 February 2007
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of opportunistic Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) screening of asymptomatic men attending three different secondary healthcare settings and to investigate CT positivity in these settings.
Methods: Men attending fracture, fertility and family planning (FP) clinics were invited to be screened by first-void urine and complete a questionnaire which collected demographic, sexual and behavioural characteristics, and their opinion about the screening process.
Results: 1290 men were approached, with 80% participating. The number of men approached, number providing a satisfactory urine specimen and CT positivity rate (95% CI) were, respectively, n = 401, n = 206, 14.6% (10.4 to 20.1) for the FP clinic, n = 505, n = 328, 1.2% (0.5 to 3.2) for the fracture clinic and n = 384, n = 319, 0.3% (0.1 to 1.8) for the fertility clinic. The highest rates of CT infection were found in men attending the FP clinics, aged between 20–24 years. Most of the men from all three clinics felt that the setting (87.9%) and specimen (97.7%) were acceptable.
Conclusion: Opportunistic chlamydial screening of asymptomatic men in three secondary healthcare settings found high positivity rates, but low uptake rates in a FP setting compared with fertility and fracture clinics. Innovative and targeted intervention strategies are required to engage this high-risk group of men in screening.
Footnotes
-
Published Online First 21 February 2007
-
Funding: Funded by University of Aberdeen.
-
Competing interests: None.
-
SS was involved in project design, and was responsible for recruitment, data analysis and writing the first draft; SL was involved in project design and interpretation of results, responsible for editing the paper; SMcG was involved in recruitment and analysis in family planning clinics; AT initiated the project and edited the final draft; HM was involved in project design, interpretation of results and was a liaison consultant in microbiology; AS was involved in patient recruitment and was a liaison consultant in the fracture clinic; MH peer-reviewed the protocol and was involved in interpretation of results; and SB was involved in project design, supervision of the project and editing the paper.
