Article Text


P3.023* Geographical Clustering of Repeat Positive Tests with Chlamydia Trachomatis Among Young People (16–29 Years); Identification of a Hidden Key Chlamydia Population
  1. A P A Vermeiren MSc1,
  2. MD C J P A Hoebe PhD1,2,3,
  3. G A F S van Liere MSc1,3,
  4. B Kauhl MSc4,
  5. A Ziemann PhD4,
  6. T Krafft PhD4,
  7. N H T M Dukers-Muijrers PhD1,2,3
  1. 1Department of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health, Public Health Service South Limburg, Geleen, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Medical Mircobiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  3. 3CAPHRI School of Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  4. 4Department of International Health, CAPHRI School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht, The Netherlands


Background Young patients with repeat infections of Chlamydia trachomatis(Ct) are a key population for prevention as they indicate ongoing risk for spread and complications in women. We estimated the hidden key population, i.e. missed repeat testers and repeat positives, to effectively focus screening strategies.

Methods Data covered all youngsters (16–29 years,n = 42,894) in Eastern South-Limburg, the Netherlands (2006–2010) including all their genital Ct tests by any care provider. Using logistic regression, determinants (age, sex, socio-economic status (SES)) for not having a repeat test (in positives) and for having a positive repeat test (in repeated testers) were evaluated. Using Geographic-Information-Systems and spatial statistics (SaTScan purely spatial Poisson model, Bivariate Local Moran`s I), spatial clusters and correlations with SES of repeat (positive) tests were evaluated.

Results Overall 10,044 (23.4%) youngsters were tested of whom 944(9.4%) were positive. Of positives, 423(44.8%) had no repeat test (more often older, ORperyear 0.96 95% CI 0.92–1.00, and male, OR2.26 95% CI 1.69–3.02). Of repeat testers, 111(21.3%) were repeat positive. Spatial clusters were found in four municipalities(3 low SES) and low SES correlated with repeat positive tests. We estimate that 230 repeat positives (0.5% of total youngsters) are missed in care. These include 90 (21.3% of 423) who were lost in care for repeat testing follow-up and 140 repeat positives in the 32,850 youngsters who were never tested before (assuming 2.0% positivity and 21.3% repeat positivity). Overall, an estimated 67.4%(230/(230+111)) of all repeat positive patients is thereby missed in current care.

Conclusion Two-thirds of repeat positive patients are hidden to current care, some (–40%) because they missed a repeat test and others (–60%) because they are never tested. As they comprise a central but small part of the total young population, control strategies targeting this key population should be highly acuminated. Geo-spatial analysis, which pointed to low SES high prevalence areas informs more effective Ct control.

  • Chlamydia trachomatis
  • Hidden key populations
  • Repeat tests

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.