Article Text

other Versions

PDF
What does Chlamydia trachomatis detection in a urogenital specimen from a young child mean?
  1. Philip M Giffard1,2,
  2. Gurmeet Singh3,4,5,
  3. Suzanne M Garland6,7,8,9
  1. 1Global and Tropical Health, Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  2. 2School of Psychological and Clinical Sciences, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  3. 3Sexual Assault Referral Centre (Darwin), Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
  4. 4Child Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
  5. 5Northern Territory Medical Program, Flinders University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  6. 6Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  7. 7Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  8. 8Department of Microbiology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  9. 9Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Philip M Giffard, Global and Tropical Health, Menzies School of Health Research, Royal Darwin Hospital Campus, P.O. Box 41096, Casuarina, Darwin NT 0811, Australia, phil.giffard{at}menzies.edu.au

Statistics from Altmetric.com

The notion that sexually transmitted infections (STIs) can be acquired through non-sexual means is a well-established meme in the public consciousness. The public toilet seat is the most commonly blamed vector. This is despite the lack of evidence for acquisition of STIs from toilet seats, and the ready availability of reputable advice to this effect.1

While the ‘toilet seat hypothesis’ is not currently regarded as supported by data, other modes of non-sexual acquisition of STIs, though rare, have been reported. Examples include pharyngeal gonorrhoea by sharing of confectionery,2 transmission of urogenital (UGT) gonorrhoea by sharing of a sex doll,3 and transmission of Trichomonas vaginalis via the fingers of a traditional healer in west Africa.4 This provides credibility to the notion that STI detection in UGT specimens from young children is not always a consequence of ‘conventional’ sexual contact or, for very young children, vertical transmission. Estreich and Forster5 reviewed relevant evidence and concluded that inferring the cause of an STI in a young child is a ‘complex subject’, with vertical transmission, child sexual abuse and accidental/fomite transmission all conceivable mechanisms. This begs the question that is critical to service providers: How strongly does the presence of an STI in a young child indicate sexual abuse? This dilemma remains a challenge.6 In individual cases, potential modes of non-sexual transmission may be invoked, and the plausibility of these can impact child protection and/or justice system responses. Incorrect interpretation has the potential for a child remaining in an unsafe environment, or conversely leading to a false conclusion that a crime has taken place, resulting in initiation of an investigation. The strong imperatives to avoid either of these errors can create instability in institutional responses, and inappropriate management …

View Full Text

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.

Linked Articles