PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Sheringham, Jessica
AU  - Mann, Sue
AU  - Simms, Ian
AU  - Stafford, Mai
AU  - Hart, Graham J
AU  - Raine, Rosalind
TI  - It matters what you measure: a systematic literature review examining whether young people in poorer socioeconomic circumstances are more at risk of chlamydia
AID  - 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050223
DP  - 2013 Mar 01
TA  - Sexually Transmitted Infections
PG  - 175--180
VI  - 89
IP  - 2
4099  - http://sti.bmj.com/content/89/2/175.short
4100  - http://sti.bmj.com/content/89/2/175.full
SO  - Sex Transm Infect2013 Mar 01; 89
AB  - Background England has invested in chlamydia screening interventions for young people. It is not known whether young people in poorer socioeconomic circumstances (SEC) are at greater risk of chlamydia and therefore in greater need of screening. Objective To conduct a systematic review examining socioeconomic variations in chlamydia prevalence or positivity in young people. Data sources Eight bibliographic databases using terms related to chlamydia and SEC, supplemented by website and reference searches. Eligibility Studies published 1999–2011 in North America, Western Europe, Australia or New Zealand, including populations aged 15–24 years, with chlamydia prevalence or positivity diagnosed by nucleic acid amplification testing. Appraisal and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened references, extracted data, appraised studies meeting inclusion criteria and rated studies as high, medium or low according to their quality and relevance. Socioeconomic variations in chlamydia were synthesised for medium/high-rated studies only. Results No high-rated studies were identified. Eight medium-rated studies reported variations in chlamydia prevalence by SEC. In 6/8 studies, prevalence was higher in people of poorer SEC. Associations were more often significant when measured by education than when using other indicators. All studies measuring positivity were rated low. Across all studies, methodological limitations in SEC measurement were identified. Conclusions The current literature is limited in its capacity to describe associations between SEC and chlamydia risk. The choice of SEC measure may explain why some studies find higher chlamydia prevalence in young people in disadvantaged circumstances while others do not. Studies using appropriate SEC indicators (eg, education) are needed to inform decisions about targeting chlamydia screening.