» Articles » PMID: 26290483

Is Chlamydia Screening and Testing in Britain Reaching Young Adults at Risk of Infection? Findings from the Third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3)

Abstract

Background: In the context of widespread opportunistic chlamydia screening among young adults, we aimed to quantify chlamydia testing and diagnosis among 16-24 year olds in Britain in relation to risk factors for prevalent chlamydia infection.

Methods: Using data from sexually experienced (≥1 lifetime sexual partner) 16-year-old to 24-year-old participants in Britain's third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (conducted 2010-2012), we explored socio-demographic and behavioural factors associated with prevalent chlamydia infection (detected in urine; n=1832), self-reported testing and self-reported diagnosis in the last year (both n=3115).

Results: Chlamydia prevalence was 3.1% (95% CI 2.2% to 4.3%) in women and 2.3% (1.5% to 3.4%) in men. A total of 12.3% of women and 5.3% men had a previous chlamydia diagnosis. Factors associated with prevalent infection were also associated with testing and diagnosis (eg, increasing numbers of sexual partners), with some exceptions. For example, chlamydia prevalence was higher in women living in more deprived areas, whereas testing was not. In men, prevalence was higher in 20-24 than 16-19 year olds but testing was lower. Thirty per cent of women and 53.7% of men with ≥2 new sexual partners in the last year had not recently tested.

Conclusions: In 2010-2012 in Britain, the proportion of young adults reporting chlamydia testing was generally higher in those reporting factors associated with chlamydia. However, many of those with risk factors had not been recently tested, leaving potential for undiagnosed infections. Greater screening and prevention efforts among individuals in deprived areas and those reporting risk factors for chlamydia may reduce undiagnosed prevalence and transmission.

Citing Articles

Opening the digital doorway to sexual healthcare: Recommendations from a behaviour change wheel analysis of barriers and facilitators to seeking online sexual health information and support among underserved populations.

McLeod J, Estcourt C, MacDonald J, Gibbs J, Woode Owusu M, Mapp F PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0315049.

PMID: 39775372 PMC: 11709294. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315049.


Young, deprived women are more at risk of testing positive for Chlamydia trachomatis: Results from a cross-sectional multicentre study in French health examination centres.

Labbe-Lobertreau E, Oriol M, Goethals L, Vincent I, Amsallem E Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2024; 8:100554.

PMID: 39554617 PMC: 11565415. DOI: 10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100554.


Assessing the impact of online postal self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections on health inequalities, access to care and clinical outcomes in the UK: protocol for ASSIST, a realist evaluation.

Gibbs J, Howarth A, Sheringham J, Jackson L, Wong G, Copas A BMJ Open. 2022; 12(12):e067170.

PMID: 36517086 PMC: 9756155. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067170.


Understanding the barriers and facilitators to using self-sampling packs for sexually transmitted infections and blood-borne viruses: Thematic analyses for intervention optimization.

Flowers P, Vojt G, Pothoulaki M, Mapp F, Woode Owusu M, Estcourt C Br J Health Psychol. 2022; 28(1):156-173.

PMID: 35918874 PMC: 10086833. DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12617.


Access to, usage and clinic outcomes of, online postal sexually transmitted infection services: a scoping review.

Sumray K, Lloyd K, Estcourt C, Burns F, Gibbs J Sex Transm Infect. 2022; .

PMID: 35701146 PMC: 9613868. DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2021-055376.


References
1.
Fenton K, Korovessis C, Johnson A, McCadden A, McManus S, Wellings K . Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Lancet. 2001; 358(9296):1851-4. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06886-6. View

2.
Cook R, Clark D . Is there an association between alcohol consumption and sexually transmitted diseases? A systematic review. Sex Transm Dis. 2005; 32(3):156-64. DOI: 10.1097/01.olq.0000151418.03899.97. View

3.
Skidmore S, Horner P, Mallinson H . Testing specimens for Chlamydia trachomatis. Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(4):272-5. PMC: 2564706. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2005.019034. View

4.
Turner K, Adams E, LaMontagne D, Emmett L, Baster K, Edmunds W . Modelling the effectiveness of chlamydia screening in England. Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(6):496-502. PMC: 2563876. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2005.019067. View

5.
Mercer C, Copas A, Sonnenberg P, Johnson A, McManus S, Erens B . Who has sex with whom? Characteristics of heterosexual partnerships reported in a national probability survey and implications for STI risk. Int J Epidemiol. 2008; 38(1):206-14. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn216. View